.[]735 



and Peace Crime of 
Entente Allies 



BY 



STEWART E. BRUCE 




Qass. 
Book 



■T^735- 



ni 



7) 



<: >. 



o 



The War Guilt 

and Peace Crime of the 

Entente AUies 



BY 

STEWART E. BRUCE 



^ 



F. L. SEARL & CO. 

110 W. 34th St., New York, 

New York 

1920 






Copyright 1920, by 

STEWART E. BRUCE 



1.1, .; mi 



MAY 23 1921 / (C. 



O 



PREFACE 

I have held the belief from the beginning of 
the struggle that Russia, G-reat Britain and 
France were essentially as guilty of bringing on 
the World War as Germany. Even if this guilt 
had been very generally recognized, a book such 
as this might have been deemed neither wise nor 
expedient, provided the victors had atoned for 
their share in the guilt by acting with some de- 
gree of moderation when the time for settle- 
ment had arrived. But when the terrible nature 
of the Peace settlement is contemplated, one 
would be untrue to his own conscience as well 
as lacking in duty to humanity if no attempt 
were made to reopen this whole question, now 
that free speech and a free press are again in 
our possession. 

The purpose of this book is to show the guilt 
of the Entente Allies, America's unwise partici- 
pation in the struggle, the evil nature of the 
Peace settlement, and most important of all — 
the structural changes which will be necessary 
in the governments of such countries as Great 
Britain, France, Germany and America, to the 
end that the people will become the real masters 
of their own destiny, so that a repetition of 
such a world calamity may not again occur. 

The Author. 
670 St. John Ave., 

Pasadena, California. 



.15 



3^ 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I 
Introductory 1 

CHAPTER II 
Great Britain 27 

CHAPTER III 
France 61 

CHAPTER IV 
Russia 68 

CHAPTER V 
The United States 70 

CHAPTER VI 

A Further Consideration of Inconsistency, 

Insincerity and Guilt 116 

CHAPTER VII 
The Peace of Versailles 144 

CHAPTER VIII 

The Lessons and the Remedy 170 



What in me is dark 
Illume, what is low, raise and support; 
That to the height of this great argument 
I may assert eternal Providence 
And justify the ways of God to men. 

— Milton. 



CHAPTER I 

Introductory 

Peace, above all else, is what the world needs 
to-day — not physical peace alone, but mental and 
spiritual peace as well. 

Germany is crushed. The Kaiser is a refugee. 
The triumphant armies of the Allies, for the 
most part, have returned to their respective 
countries, and their battle flags are furled. 

The great leaders representing the victors, 
after months of labor, have presented to the 
world a ''Peace Treaty," presumably in ac- 
cordance with the lofty war aims, which were 
set forth from time to time during the course of 
the conflict and which were to serve as a rally- 
ing cry for the hosts of "freedom against autoc- 
racy. ' ' 

The conquered peoples have abjectly ac- 
cepted the terms of their conquerors. Since 
the Armistice was signed the winter snows have 
fallen, the grass has grown green and again the 
snow falls on Flanders Fields, and yet there is 
no peace anywhere in the world except per- 
chance the peace that death has brought to the 
millions who are the victims of this appalling 
sacrifice. 

We hear the cry "Peace," "Peace" but 
there is no peace. Civilization to-day stands re- 
buked. The scourge is on the bare back of every 
country, both ally and enemy. The heavens are 
dark with the avenging wrath of the Almighty 
God. Governments are trembling as if by 
palsy. Envy, hatred, revenge, excesses, vio- 

[1] 



lence, starvation and death stalk up and down 
the lands. Truly we have sown the wind and 
now we are reaping the whirlwind. 

What harvest may the world expect from such 
a sowing? What manner of harvest must we 
reap, if for five long seasons we sow lies, hatred, 
revenge, malice where once grew mercy, kind- 
ness and truth 1 

No miracle can save the world from the black 
abyss into which it has fallen. Our disease is 
not merely collective but it is also individual. 
The tares must be uprooted from the garden of 
each heart, and truth, charity, humanity and love 
must be substituted. There is but one formula 
to be applied — ''Know the Truth and the Truth 
shall make you free. ' ' 

What the world needs to know now for its 
temporal salvation is the Truth. Truth about 
their leaders, truth about their enemies, and 
truth about themselves. 

If lies led the world astray, then it is manifest 
that truth is the only hope of the world to-day. 

It is hard to forgive your enemy and make 
peace with him if you continue to believe that 
you are entirely right and he entirely wrong, 
but if you should find extenuating circumstances 
in his favor, or should discover that there was 
blame on both sides, enmity in all likelihood 
would soon pass away. 

No real peace can come to the world until the 
real truth about this war is known to all. If the 
world has been led astray by falsehoods, by 
lying propaganda, by organized and systematic 
misrepresentation, and if hatred and revenge 
has taken possession of the human heart there- 
by, it is evident that truth is the essential recti- 
fying and restoring agent. It is indeed not nec- 
essary for you to know that your enemy was 

[2] 



right and you wrong in order to lay a basis for 
reconciliation, but it is necessary to know that 
both of you were to blame — and quite equally. 
If on investigation it were determined that the 
Allies were equally to blame with Germany in 
being responsible for the late war, the whole 
heart of humanity would change its attitude, a 
new spirit of forgiveness would follow, and this 
in itself would tend to bring true world peace. 
If it were found that Britain, France and Rus- 
sia were equally guilty with Germany, then we 
are in honor bound to acknowledge this fact in 
justice, if for no other reason, to the twelve mil- 
lions of Germans in America, who before the 
war were considered highly desirable and use- 
ful citizens, and who while the war lasted were 
the victims of all the artifices that malignant 
hatred could invent. 

In this volume as a contribution to truth and 
world peace, I will endeavor to show: (1) that 
Russia, France and England were all guilty 
and all contributed to the causing of the world 
war, (2) the particular selfish aim and object 
which each country expected to attain as a re- 
sult of the war, (3) the heroic and the stupid 
parts America played in the great war tragedy, 
(4) what means must be taken by the people to 
prevent a recurrence of such a catastrophe. 

In this inquiry for truth I do not purpose tak- 
ing time or space to prove Germany's guilt. 
That task has been covered in every detail and 
from every possible angle by thousands of in- 
terested and disinterested investigators. The 
contributions on this question are perhaps 
more voluminous than on any other subject in 
all history. Some of the findings are unbiased 
and enlightening, but the greater part can only 
be purified by being consigned to the flames, 

[3] 



unless this generation desires to go down in 
history as being the victims of the vilest prop- 
aganda, and the most unfair if not criminal dis- 
tortions of the truth ever experienced by man. 

Viewing the records of the past five years, a 
disinterested observer might be pardoned if he 
sincerely asked, *'Is there truth in anything, 
anybody or anywhere?" All things seem tinc- 
tured or distorted. All sense of fitness, fair- 
ness, justice and proportion seem to have van- 
ished. Reason, for the present, seems to be 
dethroned and men are governed in the most 
part by their primeval and baser instincts. The 
caveman to-day is grinning through the thin 
veneer of so-called civilization. 

Witness for example the monstrous request 
of the British and French nations through their 
accredited spokesmen, that the late Emperor of 
Germany be tried by them for high crimes com- 
mitted against international law and order. The 
Kaiser may be as guilty as all Hell, but who 
can measure the degeneracy of such an offense 
against elementary justice as that any man 
should be brought into court in which his re- 
vengeful enemy is the complainant, prosecutor, 
judge, jury and executor? Had a trial of the 
Kaiser been desirable, it should have been left 
to a court made up of neutrals with the request 
that they should not only pass on the guilt of 
the Kaiser and those associated with him, but 
that they should also pass judgment on all the 
leaders who had any part in letting loose the 
dogs of war in August, 1914. This one act or 
request by a responsible British statesman will 
show future generations, as nothing else will, 
how far the world has drifted away from the 
well established and universally recognized 
principles of justice — principles that had 

[4] 



marked prior to 1914 the high-water mark of 
our civilization. 

He who would do full justice to friend and 
foe alike in order that Peace may be hastened 
on this earth must before all else recognize in 
heart and brain the fatherhood of Grod and the 
brotherhood of man. He must free himself of 
the baleful influence of that tribal instinct which 
masquerades under the guise of super-patriot- 
ism, that pagan worship of the state, material 
though it is, corrupt though it is, which oper- 
ates always to the exclusion of the plain and un- 
mistakable teachings of Christ. 

When the question of simple justice is in the 
balance, an honest man will know no city, no 
state, no nation or kindred, for justice has no 
bounds is universal and eternal. 

In arriving at a correct judgment as to the 
guilt or innocence of Eussia, England and 
France, we must turn back the pages of history 
to those formative and eventful days in 1914, 
beginning with July 26th, and ending August 
5th, the date of the staging of the world war 
drama. 

The neutral press covering this period must 
be consulted and dissected by the future his- 
torian in order that he may obtain unpartisan 
information as to what really and truly did 
occur on those momentous days. In order to 
Imow definitely the opinion of the world as ex- 
pressed and reflected in the newspapers, both 
by despatches from Europe and editorials at 
that important time before propaganda had got- 
ten in its deadly and poisonous work, we of 
necessity are compelled in this inquiry to rely 
to a degree on the press of these dates, among 
other things to give material evidence for our 
guidance in reaching a verdict. 

[5] 



In order to obtain a proper perspective, it 
will be necessary to divide into four arbitrary 
divisions the important time under considera- 
tion, namely: 

(1) That period beginning with the slaying 
of the Austrian Crown Prince and ending 
August 5, 1914, the day when Great Britain 
joined Russia, France and Belgium in war on 
Germany. 

(2) From August 5, 1914, until America en- 
tered the war. 

(3) From America's entry until the Armis- 
tice. 

(4) From the Armistice up to the present. 
In-so-far as arriving at the truth goes, with 

regard to placing the guilt on the heads of those 
responsible for the world's greatest calamity 
the first named period will, without doubt, be 
chosen by the impartial historian of the future 
as the one in which the records are more clear 
and clean than during any subsequent period; 
that period in which the crystal streams of truth 
were as yet comparatively free from the poisons 
of propaganda; when men spoke their minds 
freely without being charged with pro this and 
pro that, and when men read history with their 
understanding, and less through the spectacles 
of inflamed passions and prejudices. 

Those, indeed, were the days of free speech, 
free press and free men — men free to point out 
if they cared to without risk of imprisonment 
such outstanding facts as, for instance — that 
for self protection Germany required an army 
equal to the combined strength of her border 
neighbors, Russia and France; as England for 
her protection required a navy equal to the com- 
bined strength of any two of her rivals ; that a 
record of forty years of peace should count for 

[6] 



something before the tribunal of public opinion ; 
that nearly every civilized country during that 
time had their hands more or less stained with 
human blood, and also that the character and 
record of those arrayed against her, as attested 
to by history, entitled their pretended war aims 
to be received with at least as much suspicion 
as those entertained by fair-minded men against 
Germany. 

We cannot turn backward old time in its 
flight for a day, much less five years, but we 
can turn back the printed page of history and in 
a measure re-live the fateful hours of the past, 
breathe its atmosphere and drink from the 
streams of truth, which often are clearer at 
their source; and again refresh our memory 
which time and circumstances have dimmed or 
distorted. 

As a preliminary to this inquiry as to war 
causes and war guilt the records and impres- 
sions as contained in the press at that time 
must now be recalled and re-examined. Not- 
withstanding the fact that eighty per cent of 
the American people were connected by blood 
relation to the people of the Entente Allies, and 
therefore their sympathy would naturally go to 
them, we find in the face of this a strong public 
sentiment as expressed in the press, condemning 
all parties engaged in the European contest. 

Foreign news for American publications 
came through the Associated Press and other 
non-partisan news agencies. These despatches 
and summaries are usually based upon verified 
information, and in normal times reflect condi- 
tions truthfully as set forth and described. 
Through such agencies as these, London and 
Berlin, for instance, years ago received as 
authentic news and description of the San Fran- 



cisco eartliquake as did the people of California. 
In such cases as these there was no necessity 
for falsehood or misrepresentation. 

It is safe to say that up to August 5, 1914, 
propaganda as we now understand it, was not 
in evidence and could not be detected in the 
news as hourly flashed from London, Paris, 
Berlin and St. Petersburg. Unconscious parti- 
sanship may be detected in both the despatches 
and conclusions, but take it as a whole, no effort 
was made to influence public opinion, and the 
news gatherers and contributors were true and 
faithful to the highest traditions of the news- 
paper calling. 

The representatives of the news agencies 
cabled the news as they got it and accompanied 
this news with descriptive material, reflecting, 
to the best of their ability, the atmosphere, and 
the lights and shadows surrounding the actors 
as they began playing their parts in those 
eventful and never-to-be-forgotten days. 

On the morning of July 26, 1914, the world 
awoke to find that a general European War, 
long promised, long delayed, was not only a 
possibility but now almost a stern and horrible 
reality. Half a score of men were holding in 
the hollow of their hands the fate of Europe; 
while the life and death of untold millions 
rested on the whim, caprice or ambition of men 
whose number could be counted on the fingers 
of the human hand. 

God Almighty alone knew all the hidden se- 
crets of the heads and hearts of these men, but 
it has surely been left to mortals, even ordinary 
mortals, to divine at least some of the motives 
of these so-called national leaders, which oper- 
ating at the time, failed to stay the hand that 
would unleash the dogs of war. 

[8] 



It must be remembered that up to the third 
week in July the Austro-Servian difficulty was 
purely local in character, and remained so until 
the Russian Czar took an uncompromising stand 
in relation thereto. 

Examine, if you will, not necessarily with a 
microscope, but with the naked eye, that bastard 
child of a shameless union of civilization and 
barbarism, that hairy half animal and half man, 
that tyrant under whose blonde skin flowed the 
blackest and crudest blood of Europe and then 
ask yourself in the name of God and humanity, 
if this is the creature that Great Britain and 
France acknowledged as leader and blindly fol- 
lowed into a war that any madman would know, 
meant the destruction of Europe. Or, was it 
that Great Britain and Prance, too proud to 
acknowledge such a leadership, used this Rus- 
sian tyrant and his two hundred million slaves 
as a hunter uses his hounds to tree the enemy 
and then proceed to bag him at will in more or 
less safety and security. 

Here, for example, in Southern California, 
published in Los Angeles, are two typical morn- 
ing newspapers — the Daily Times and the Daily 
Examiner. More than a million people depend 
largely on these papers for their local and, 
world news. The Examiner has been charged 
with being Anti-British and by some Pro-Ger- 
man, therefore that paper will be excluded in 
this inquiry and the cable dispatches and edi- 
torials of the Times will be presented as the 
first newspaper evidence, among numerous 
others, as showing the mind of Europe and the 
American sentiment that obtained between 
July 26th, when a general European war became 
an almost foregone conclusion, and August 5th, 
the day when Great Britain decided to cast her 

[9] 



lot with Russia, France and Belgium in war on 
Germany. After August 5tli a strict censor- 
ship was established, and a screen was thrown 
around Germany, and immediately propaganda 
was begun under British leadership to whet the 
fighting spirit of the Allies and win for their 
cause the support of neutral nations. Therefore, 
the following despatches and editorials, free 
from the censor and comparatively free from 
the poison of propaganda, are presented as 
showing that a large portion of the reputable 
press of America believed that the guilt of 
Russia, Great Britain and France was clearly 
manifest and the underlying causes for the 
European war antedated by many years the 
murder of the Austrian Crown Prince. It will 
be shown further, that these same publications, 
at a later date, in obedience to the command of 
their masters or to race prejudice, joined in a 
general condemnation of Germany and a lauda- 
tion of all aims and objects of her enemies. It 
will be well for the reader to examine the cable 
despatches which came direct from London and 
also to note the editorials, which at the time 
expressed spontaneous convictions, and then 
compare them with the tirades of later dates. 

'The Daily Times of Los Angeles, for instance, 
is typical of a large section of the American 
Press. Up to August 5, 1914, the American pa- 
pers had at their disposal as much knowledge 
of war causes as at any subsequent period, and 
it will be interesting to note their attitude then 
and compare it with their virulent and incon- 
sistent position later. 

For instance, on July 31, 1914, the Los An- 
geles Times had the following editorial; writ- 
ten after viewing the whole European situation. 
'^ Russia may take up the quarrel that she 
[10] 



has seemed anxious to have since the 
Crimean War. France scarcely seems to 
conceal her expectations that she will be 
drawn into the conflict. Germany is bound 
by an alliance that cannot well be ignored 
at so crucial a time Emperor Wil- 
liam called with picturesque inappropri- 
ateness ''the war lord of Europe" is trying 
to maintain harmony." 

On August 2nd (three days before Britain de- 
clared war) the Times had the following inter- 
esting editorial : 

"Britain is smiling; they laugh at how 
Germany is putting her foot into the sea; 
England knows who is ready for the sea 
and who is not. England has been unhappy 
about Germany's idea of a fleet for some 
time. There will be a noise like a crack of 
doom Over There if this continues to look 
like England's opportunity." 

The Times was right. Three days later, on 
August 5th it did look like Britain's oppor- 
tunity. Her enemy and trade rival was almost 
surrounded — Russia on one side and France on 
the other ready to dismember her. Could any- 
thing be more to Britain 's liking 1 

On August 5th, the Times on a prominent 
part of the first page gives the reasons why 
each country is at war. 

(1) Russia's desire to have supremacy in 
Eastern Europe. 

(2) Germany to fulfil obligations to Austria, 
also to cripple her rapidly growing rival 
— Russia. 

(3) France as an ally of Russia to get back 
lost provinces. 

2 [H] 



(4) England to support France and Rus- 
sia, to cripple her rapidly growing 
Naval rival. 

CABLE DESPATCHES 

The morning of July 26th, 1914, brought the 
first cablegrams which apprised the American 
people that a general European war was immi- 
nent. These despatches will prove at the pres- 
ent time both interesting and instructive. 

(BY ATLANTIC CABLE ANJD ASSOCI- 
ATED PRESS) 

London, July 26th '^The vital question to 
Europe is whether Russia will come to the 
rescue of her little Slav brother involving 
the other powers and making of the war a 
dread struggle of the Slav against Teuton 
for European supremacy." 

London, July 26th ''Report from St. Petersburg 
says that Russia is mobilizing, but it is to 
be remembered that Russia mobilized to 
some extent when Austria annexed Bosnia, 
and the German Emperor stepped to the 
side of his ally and put a veto on Russian 
intervention. ' ' 

St. Petersburg, July 26th * ' General Soukhomli- 
noff, Russian minister of War to-day made 
a long detailed vigorous speech showing 
the complete military readiness of Russia." 

Paris, July 26tli "The Republic Francaise — 
'We are called upon to intervene, not as 
mediators but as belligerents, with all our 
forces' (Up to this time France was not 
directly or indirectly threatened)." 

Berlin, July 26th "Germany has made known 
to the European capitals, particularly 
[12] 



Paris and St. Petersburg, that she regards 
the conflict between Austria and Servia as 
concerning these two states alone, and the 
contest, therefore, must be localized. The 
statement continues that German endeav- 
ors are directed towards inducing the other 
powers to accept that standpoint so that the 
peace of Europe may be preserved." 

Berlin, July 27th ''It is understood here that 
Russia has informed Berlin that no mobili- 
zation has taken place. In consequence of 
this Germany has decided not to mobilize 
unless Russia does so." 

Paris, July 29th ''The French Government has 
taken firm 'means to suppress anti-war 
meetings. A strong sentiment for peace is 
shown amongst the people." (Strange pro- 
ceedings of a Government that desired 
peace, to suppress peace meetings.) 

Brussels, July 29th "Military movement in 
Belgium is being pushed rapidly, and by 
to-morrow evening one hundred thousand 
men will be equipped and ready. The forts 
around Liege and Namur are receiving war 
equipment. ' ' 

London, July 31st "Germany has addressed a 
note to Russia requesting an explanation 
of Russian mobilization and in the absence 
of a satisfactory reply, it is feared here 
that Germany may take steps to mobilize 
also. Sir Edward Grey invites Germany 
to suggest some way out of the difficulty. 
Germany's view is, that it behooves Eng- 
land and France to bring pressure on Rus- 
sia so as to allow the two principals to 
settle their differences without outside in- 
terference. ' ' 

[13] 



Berlin, July 31st ''Grand Duke Ernst of Hesse, 
a brother of Empress Elizabeth of Russia, 
was sent to-day by Emperor William to Rus- 
sia in a last endeavor to arrange peace. ' ' 

London, August 1st "The belief is held here by 
many that the existence of the whole of 
Europe as an armed camp, nervous and 
jealous, can have but one culmination, and 
if the hour for a general settlement has 
struck, there will be no faltering. ' ' 

London, August 1st "War developments have 
moved to-day with startling rapidity. The 
German ultimatum to Russia demanding 
that Russia cease the mobilization of her 
army expired at noon and at 5:15 o'clock 
in the evening the German Emperor signed 
a mobilization order. 

"Now the die is cast and Europe is to be 
plunged into a general war, which has been 
the apprehension of European statesmen 
for generations. It is now only a question 
of how soon a state of actual war will exist 
between Germany and France. 

"Late to-night placards were posted in 
Paris calling for general mobilization and 
the German ambassador, although he has 
not been handed his passport, was prepar- 
ing to leave the French capital. It is not 
known at exactly what hour Germany's 
ultimatum to France asking that country to 
decide what attitude she would assume in 
the case of a war by Germany and Austria 
against Russia, was to expire, but it is be- 
lieved it will not be long before diplomatic 
relations will be ruptured or war declared. 

"The German Emperor and his advisers, 
[14] 



have maintained to the last that they made 
a supreme effort for the sake of peace and 
the last of the series of earnest appeals 
from Emperor William to Emperor 
Nicholas was a telegram repudiating re- 
sponsibility for the calamity threatening 
the world on the grounds that while Ger- 
many was engaged in mediating with Aus- 
tria-Hungary at Russia's request, Russia 
by her general mobilization was threaten- 
ing Germany's safety." 

London, August 1st ^'From the moment Aus- 
tria-Hungary caught the world napping in 
its swift attack on Servia, the German Em- 
peror has been one of the principal figures 
in the situation. To-night all London re- 
gards him as the chief figure, isolated, 
dominating, unafraid, with his back against 
the wall; desiring peace but adhering to 
the demand of his people for war. 

''Many persons believe the situation would 
have been different to-night if Emperor 
William had been at Potsdam instead of 
with his fleet in the North Sea when the 
Hapsburgs proceeded with their chastise- 
ment of Servia; but when William II 
reached home all Germany was aflame over 
the great struggle between Teuton and 
Serb. 

' ' The German Emperor towering head and 
shoulders over every other head in Europe, 
is regarded by the diplomats here to-night 
as being in the tightest place in his re- 
markable career, with Italy running away 
from the Triple Alliance and Austria seri- 
ously engaged with Servia. Emperor Wil- 
liam stands surrounded. Russia is mobil- 
[15] 



izing on the one hand, France ready on the 
other, and Great Britain is threatening his 
navy and throwing a cordon of fighting 
ships around his seaports." 

''Well may the Kaiser say as he said in his 
speech last night, 'A dark day has to-day 
broken over Germany. ' !Thus the Emperor 
stands to-night in the eyes of England a 
sort of Frederick the Great, beset on every 
side by enemies. And he is the great figure 
in the situation which has almost in the 
twinkling of an eye changed to place him 
in a position of great military disadvan- 
tage. ' ' 

Berlin, August 2nd "An official statement to- 
day says 'In consequence of a Russian at- 
tack on German territory, Germany is in a 
state of war with Russia. The French re- 
ply to the German representative is of 
an unsatisfactory character. Moreover, 
France has mobilized and an outbreak with 
France must, therefore, be reckoned with, 
any day or any moment. ' ' 

London, August 2nd "Numerous peace meet- 
ings are being held throughout England. 
It is urged on all sides that England halt 
Russia on penalty of withdrawing from the 
Triple Entente ; that Russia has already in 
the past violated the understanding by its 
anti-British action in Persia and that civil- 
ization should be better with German than 
Russian supremacy in that section of 
Europe; that England must cast her lot 
with German civilization as against Rus- 
sian barbarism. These protests are com- 
ing in from societies and prominent men 
and women in every walk of life. ' ' 
[16] 



St. Petersburg, August 2nd ''The rupture of 
diplomatic relations between Russia and 
Germany took place under dramatic cir- 
cumstances. It was midnight Friday when 
Count von Pourtales, the German ambas- 
sador to Russia, visited Foreign Minister 
Sazonoff and asked for an urgent interview. 
As soon as he was received, he informally 
called upon Russia to cease her mobilization 
within twelve hours. The allotted period 
passed without an answer. At 7 :00 o'clock 
Saturday evening, Count Pourtales again 
called upon Minister Sazonoff and asked if 
Russia would cease mobilizing forces. To 
this the Russian statesman replied: 'Inas- 
much as the Russian Government has not 
answered within the time you specified, it 
follows that Russia has declined to agree 
with your demands.' Three times Count 
von Pourtales repeated the German ultima- 
tum and each time the Russian Foreign 
Minister met his statement with the same 
firm negative. Finally Count von Pour- 
tales rose from his chair, bowed to the For- 
eign Minister and left the room without a 
word. He and the members of his staff at 
once departed from St. Petersburg by way 
of Finland." 

London, August 3rd "British statesmen decline 
to state whether they regard the invasion 
of Belgium a cause for war." 

London, August 5th ''Britain declares war on 
Germany. ' ' 

Washington, August 6th ' ' Military experts here 
believe that Germany's only hope is in 
crossing Belgium." 
[17] 



Newspaper Comments 

Mr. Norman Hapgood, editor of Harper's 
Weekly, in a dispatch to that paper, dated Lon- 
don, August 12th, 1914, expresses the following : 

"Many who call this war the greatest calam- 
ity in history must trace it to the vast fighting 
machines which must be used quickly on account 
of the importance of the first blow. Some blame 
Germany and some Eussia. Some fear one of 
these countries, and some the other. The 
cooler and more balanced minds say that if it 
had not been for the armaments and alliances, 
there would have been time for consultation, 
and the area of war would have been limited." 

Bernard Shaw, Special cable from London : 
* * France, instead of using her surplus income 
in abolishing French slums and building up 
French children into strong men and women, 
has lent it to Russia to strengthen the most 
tyrannical government in Europe. And to secure 
interest on her loan she has gone into an unnat- 
ural alliance with Russia against her more civ- 
ilized neighbors. We have no right to throw 
stones at France on this account for we made 
agreement with Russia of a still more sordidly 
commercial character for the exploitation of 
Persia with capital that should have fed our 
starved children. And now mark the conse- 
quences; Germany with hostile France on one 
side and hostile Russia on the other is in a posi- 
tion so dangerous that we here in our secure 
island can form no conception of its intolerable 
tension. By our blunders we have brought 
about the war. We have deliberately added to 
the strain by making a military and naval anti- 
German alliance with France, without at the 
same time balancing its effect. By assuring 

[18] 



Germany that if she kept the peace with France 
we would not help Russia against her, nor in 
the last resource allow Russia to advance her 
frontier westward. ' ' 

"It is not to be wondered at that Germany 
with a chronic pride in its militarism raised to 
desperation by Russia, France and England, 
made a wild attempt to cut its way out after a 
despairing appeal to us to let it fight one to two 
instead of one to three. Let us be just to Ger- 
many. ' ' 

"History will not excuse us because after 
making the war inevitable, we run around at 
the last moment begging everybody not to 
make a disturbance. ' ' 

London Outlook: 

"It must be contended that Servia has been 
receiving an amount of sympathy which is 
quite unwarranted by circumstances. The highly 
colored portrayals of her as a gallant little 
nation, fighting against odds, is all fudge. The 
Serb has shown treachery and cunning to friend 
and foe alike until they have alienated every 
ally except the great power (Russia) which may 
find it awkward to offer practical help." 

Mr. Lowes Dickinson, Author and Lecturer^ — 
Cambridge University: 

"For what are these gamblers playing? Each 
says he is playing for safety. Each says the 
other is playing for power. We English be- 
lieve we are resisting aggression. We may be 
sure the Germans do not believe it of us. We 
may be sure they do not believe they are ag- 
gressors. Behind all governments is a theory — 
the theory of the balance of power. Behind 
the theory are passions — the passions of fear 

[19] 



and cupidity. Behind these passions is the 
whole, long and tragic history of mankind. The 
rulers play on them like pipes. All men not 
blinded by theories know that the power to 
which governments sacrifice nations is an idol. ' ' 

Detroit Daily News, July 31, 1914 :— 
"That a state of war exists over most of 

Europe was perfectly apparent before Germany 

issued her declaration." 

Detroit News, August 3, 1914 (Leading article 
on first page) : — 

"Political moralists and sticklers for the 
rules of the game Avill be very severe of their 
criticism of the German Emperor for pouring 
his army into neutral territory. ..." 

"This is just as foolish as to condemn a man 
for shooting another when he believes his life 
to be in imminent danger. When a nation 
deems its life in danger it seldom says, "After 
you, my dear Alphonse. ' ' They did that sort of 
thing at Fontenoy, and found it very costly. ' ' 

* * One might find in the vicinity of Oyster Bay 
another leader who might have done the same 
thing if he thought his country might be in dan- 
ger of being overrun by enemies on every bor- 
der save one. ' ' 

Springfield Republican : 

' * Europe is full of racial rivalries, suppressed 
imperial and national ambitions, religious 
hates, economic pressure, trade jealousies, in- 
ternal strains and stresses and lines of cleavage 
which run across the frontiers." 

London Labor Leader : 

"It is monstrously unfair to thrust on the 
German leaders all the responsibility for the 
present conflict. It may be true that they held 

[20] 



a pistol to the head of Europe, but is there not 
some justification for a man whipping out a pis- 
tol when he is surrounded by armed enemies 
plotting his downfall? That has been the posi- 
tion of Germany. During the past ten years 
Great Britain, France and Russia have delib- 
erately schemed to isolate and degrade Ger- 
many. ' ' 

New York Sun: 

''There is nothing reasonable in such a war 
as that for which Europe has been making 
ready, and it would be folly for this country to 
sacrifice itself to the frenzy of dynastic policies 
and a clash of ancient hatreds which is urging 
the Old World to destruction. 

' ' Could anything be more rational than a re- 
fusal of the United States, the government and 
the banking and business community, acting to- 
gether, to permit Europe to draw on this 
country for the expense of the mad courses on 
which it is about to embark? Should not the 
United States say to the world that if Europe 
is going to plunge into the abyss, the United 
States does not intend to go down with it?" 

New York Evening Post : 

"But for the obligation the Alliances have 
laid upon the contracting nations, no one would 
think it possible that the ignoble war upon 
Servia would plunge all Europe into strife. 
Talk about Dead Hand ! The two alliances with 
their subsidiary ententes are laying the hand 
of death upon all Europe to-day; compelling 
rulers to do what they shrink from; launching 
navies and setting armies on the march; leav- 
ing the masses dazed as to what it is all about ; 
and opening a prospect of ruin and woe fit to 
stagger humanity. They have called these 

[21] 



alliances the safety of Europe. Now we see 
them as they are, a peril and a curse. ' ' 

Professor Herbert Sanborn — Vanderbilt Uni- 
versity. 

''It may be true that Germany desires com- 
mercial expansion (and certainly this is the cause 
of the arrayal of British arms against her) 
but this is necessary economic right, not a crime. 
She desires it, however, not in the interest of 
luxurious living, as of England, but for the sake 
of her higher civilization and culture ; and there 
is no modern nation whose people as a, whole 
are so thoroughly permeated with this spirit." 

Ramsey MacDonald, Member of the British 
House of Commons : 

"It is a diplomatists' war made by half a 
dozen men. Up to the moment ambassadors 
were withdrawn the people were at peace. They 
had no quarrel with each other. They bore each 
other no ill will. A dozen men brought Europe 
to the brink of a precipice, and Europe fell over 
it." 

Lewiston, Maine, Journal : 

"The war is all the fruit of a false national 
ambition and of imperialism and special privi- 
lege fighting against Christian International- 
ism. ' ' 

Philadelphia Public Ledger: 

"The ultimate issue, stripped of all subordi- 
nate and vital hopes involved, is commerce. ' ' 

Louisville Courier Journal : 

" 'Big Business' at its worst as an example 
of criminal brutality, lawless selfishness and an 
utter lack of consideration for the gull'd fools 
who the toils of war pursue where bleed the 
many to enrich the few." 

[22] 



New York Sun : 

"What historian, in reviewing the evils that 
are blinding in their contemporary aspect, will 
ever be able to apportion justly the responsibil- 
ity between the personal and dynastic war im- 
pulse in high places of power and the underly- 
ing and invisible forces of race hatred and 
national greed." 

Detroit News, August 11th, 1914. 
Special Cable dispatch : 

London, August 11th, 1914 — Robt. C. Long, 
former correspondent of the International News 
Service, stationed at St. Petersburg and Berlin, 
and one of the last men to leave Berlin, 
writes : — ' ' Kaiser William did everything in his 
power for peace. Despite the protest of Von 
Moltke, he delayed the mobilization decree." 

'^The causes of the war apart from the tra- 
ditional race hatred and remote historical 
grounds were two. Of neither of them was the 
Kaiser guilty. The first cause was the incredi- 
ble folly of Count Berchtold, in refusing to 
negotiate with Russia direct. Bethmann Holl- 
weg in his zeal for peace practically issued an 
ultimatum to Austria; otherwise Germany 
would desert her. Berchtold then climbed down 
and started direct negotiations with Russia. 
But it was too late. The mischief was done. 
Russia had mobilized her armies and compelled 
the Kaiser to mobilize the German army. 

''In this war, beyond doubt, all blood guilti- 
ness lies on two powers. On Austria for her 
undue harshness to Servia; on Russia for dis- 
honesty in secretly mobilizing her armies, while 
the Kaiser was working for peace. ' ' 

[23] 



Detroit Free Press, August 1st, 1914 (Edito- 
rial) : 

^ ' Germany will go to war with Eussia because 
it is afraid of the ascendancy of Russia and 
dreads the rising star of the Slav. It feels that 
the struggle must come some time — the sooner 
the better. 

''Germany will go to war with France be- 
cause it is afraid to leave France in its rear with 
strength unimpaired. It knows that France has 
not forgotten nor forgiven the defeat and loss 
of the Franco-Prussian war. 

''Great Britain will not go to war to help 
France, but it fears that a Teuton victory will 
leave Germany too strong for safety. 

' ' Europe as a whole is plunged in the war be- 
cause a long period of peace has permitted the 
development of a number of nations of almost 
equal fighting strength, who are fearful and 
jealous of one another." 

Detroit Free Press, August 6th, 1914 (Edito- 
rial) : 
"So far as those primarily responsible for 
this war are concerned, it is a war without the 
shadow of excuse. It has been bom of envy, 
hatred, greed, distrust and ambition. 

' ' The whole origin of the affair is sordid and 
disgusting. The pretenses of justification made 
by the nations which precipitated it are so bald 
that a Mexican bandit would not consider them 
fit ground for a manifesto." 

Detroit Times, July 29th, 1914 (Editorial) : 

"If Russia helps Servia, up goes Austria in 
smoke and a new power, the Servian-Balkan 
Empire, is born in Southeastern Europe. The 
Eastern half of Europe, from the frozen Arctic 

[24] 



to the tropical Mediterranean Sea, will then be 
held by cousins in race, brothers in religion, 
brothers in semi-civilization — the Eussians and 
Serbs — both ambitious even to the conquering 
of the world. 

' * That is principally why Germany is getting 
out her fleets. Because, Austria out of the way, 
Germany would be next to be neatly carved up 
with the sword. 

'*If Russia helps Servia as against Austria, 
Germany is expected to attack Russia. The 
next move of the checkers would be for France 
to hop on the back of Germany. 

''If England plays the game according to 
treaty, she would put in her best licks against 
Austria and Germany. 

"But will she? 

''Does she want to see her hereditary enemy 
— Russia, build an invincible wall in eastern 
Europe? Does she want Russia to become the 
greatest power on earth? Does Lloyd George 
want Democracy put back a century in Europe 
by Russian-Serb domination?" 

Detroit ,Times, August 11th, 1914 (Editorial 
Express) : 
"It is unfair, this inclination to put the 
blame for this terrible war on Gennany. 

"Germany is not blameless, but the blame 
must be shared by Russia, France and Eng- 
land." 
Detroit Journal, July 31st, 1914 : 

"And behind them all stirs the bloodthirsty 
restlessness of the Russians. Their Cossacks 
will fight as they ride down women in the street. 

"Russia is the most war-like of the nations be- 
cause she is the least enlightened; her rulers 

[35] 



are the least pacific because they have the 
smallest sense of responsibility." 

The Outlook, August 8th, 1914 : 

Rev. Lyman Abbott, Editor, — Theodore Roose- 
velt Contributing Editor. 

** Germany cannot permit Russia to attack 
Austria without flying to Austria's defense. In 
the first place, the German people are liberty- 
loving and have developed political freedom to 
a high state since the days of Bismarck. They 
look with distrust upon the despotic bureau- 
cracy of Russia, and Russia with her enormous 
population and resources is always a possible 
enemy of Germany on the North. France 
threatens Germany on the South. On the west 
the commercial and political tension with Eng- 
land has almost reached the breaking point 
more than once during recent years. It is nec- 
essary, therefore, for Germany to preserve 
peace and intimate friendship with Austria. 
The Austrians are Germanic, and it may well 
be that German statesmen look forward to the 
time when German-Austria may become an in- 
tegral part of the greater German Empire. It 
is entirely probable that the German Emperor 
sincerely desired to preserve peace in Europe, 
but he will not sacrifice either the future safety 
or the future expansion of his Empire to Rus- 
sia or France for peace. ' ' 

Note — ^The above editorials and comments are not offered as 
proving guilt, but rather to show that a very large number of 
thinking people — non-German at that — viewed with suspicion, 
all parties, engaged in the struggle. Thousands of such opin- 
ions eould be submitted, if space permitted. 



[26] 



CHAPTER II 
G-EEAT Britain 

Great Britain (erroneously called England) 
played an important part not only in the prose- 
cution of the World War, but also an equally 
important part in its staging. 

:The United Kingdom is made up of the di- 
visions known as England, Scotland and Wales ; 
which with Ireland and self-governing depen- 
dencies make up the great British Empire. 
England, therefore, is not Great Britain; no 
more than Prussia is Germany. However, those 
who have read history aright must concede that 
England is the Prussia of the British Empire. 
The characteristics of the native Englishman as 
compared to the Scotchman, Welshman or 
Irishman is more like his Prussian cousin than 
he is like either of the three named ; and is just 
as marked and as distinctive as the Prussian 
type differs from the German type as found in 
Germany outside of Prussia. The dominant 
Prussian and the dominant Englishman in 
many respects are more nearly like brothers 
than cousins. In the first place, they are alike 
in that each possesses to a marked degree, the 
dual nature of angel and beast. Each has in 
common the following characteristics: Inordi- 
nate pride, acquisitiveness, cruelty, self-suffi- 
ciency, overpowering egotism and the religious 
belief in their divine right to rule; and at the 
same time in combination with these traits is to 
be found abundantly at times fine ethical ideals, 
and the loftiest human impulses. 

There are, however, two notable differences to 

[37] 



be found in the two divisions of this long sep- 
arated tribe, the first difference we may note is 
in their taste as regards eating and drinking. 
This, however, may be due to climate, and does 
not in any way disprove their common origin. 
The second difference that may be observed is 
in the underlying principles by which they are 
governed. iThe Englishman adheres to the in- 
dividual while the Prussian employs the col- 
lective system as a basis for his laws and 
regulations. In other words — individualism as 
opposed to state socialism. 

It is not my purpose here to discuss the merits 
or demerits of these opposing principles of gov- 
ernment, but it will surely not be amiss to point 
out that Great Britain (and later America) in 
endeavoring to accomplish what each claimed 
was the most vital and important task of all 
their history, namely winning the war, disre- 
garded and threw overboard the individual 
theory and accepted and practiced collectivism 
in a very marked degree. In the case of free 
speech, and free assemblage, for example, they 
out-Prussianed the Prussian. 

If the war was fought by the Allies to kill 
Prussian theories of government, then Germany 
is to a large extent a victor, for both in Britain 
and America individualism is now on a 
stretcher, while Prussian collectivism in its 
most irritating and obnoxious form is quite 
firmly in the saddle. 

Some good after all may come out of this war 
in that an enlightened and modified form of so- 
cial collectivism may be adopted in the place of 
individual license, and in place of that perni- 
cious form of collective autocracy that exists in 
streaks in England and America to-day. Surely 
there is room for this when under our political 

[28] 



system, a half a dozen men who control abun- 
dant capital may, without let or hindrance, close 
arbitrarily mammoth industrial plants, thereby 
throwing out of employment thousands, and 
thus ruining a whole country-side, basing their 
action on individual rights; or on the other 
hand, business of the whole country is often 
strangled by the walkout of a few thousand men 
engaged in a basic industry, such as railroading, 
claiming individual rights as opposed to na- 
tional rights. 

Up to the 5th day of August, 1914, the Eng- 
lishman and his Prussian cousin had done 
pretty well considering their small and humble 
beginning; each having pushed his own way in 
the world, in a very noteworthy if not always a 
praiseworthy way. 

It is indeed many hundred years since the 
great-great-grandfathers of the present in- 
habitants of England left their haunts in the 
forest beside the Elbe, the Weser, the Ems and 
in all likelihood the far off Vistula and assem- 
bled themselves together for the purpose of 
making their future homes on the little Island 
to the west of Europe 's mainland. 

We can see in imagination the startled native 
Britons watching the approach of that strange 
armada as the eastern breeze swept it towards 
the Kentish shore. What strange craft, what 
strange people, what strange dress. Fair of 
skin, blue of eyes, blonde hair falling in pro- 
fusion on their shoulders, dressed in the skin of 
the wolf, the bear and ox, many with horns pro- 
truding from their foreheads. Little wonder 
the natives became panic-stricken, gave up their 
homes (at least temporarily) and fled to caves 
and forests, leaving the newcomers free to take 
possession of the rich lands bordering on the 

[29] 



bays and rivers adjacent to their landing place. 

Thus began the wonderful history of that 
branch of the Teuton tribe that separated itself 
from the parent family for reasons we will 
never know, first occupying the lands now 
known as Kent and Essex, then, as time went 
on, the whole island and the adjoining one and 
to-day the sun never sets on their dominion. 

Following the career and noting the achieve- 
ments of the two branches of this wonderful 
family the impartial observer will be struck 
with the similarity of their methods of aggres- 
sion, their marvelous powers for dominion, and 
their wonderful faculty of acquisition. 

It is not strange that after a separation of 
nearly fifteen centuries the Englishman of to- 
day should show somewhat different character- 
istics to that of his present German cousin. 
They have lived vastly different lives. One 
settled down at home, tilled the land, etc., while 
the other chose an island home and became 
more or less a world rover. Even in the early 
days the rude sails of the Islander carried him 
far and without a great deal of effort. It was, 
therefore, inevitable that the changed mode of 
life of the two separated divisions of the Teuton 
family, would in time produce a marked diver- 
gency of character and custom. The English- 
man became a man of the world at an early date, 
while those he left behind on the mainland, for 
the most part, remained for centuries little more 
than the denizens of a country-side. 

A factor that never must be overlooked in 
determining the character of the Englishman, 
or at least those things which in early days de- 
termined his future character, was his mode of 
life for hundreds of years immediately follow- 
ing his landing on the shores of Briton. His 

[30] 



occupation of the new land was not a peaceful 
one — on the contrary it was one of the crudest 
and most bloody of history. From the day the 
Teuton landed it was a veritable war of race 
extermination. It was, in the crudest sense, a 
case of the survival of the fittest. No quarter 
was given. Even Rome had set the Teuton in- 
vader an example in moderation, which he did 
not heed. The Romans lived side by side with 
the Britons and taught them in art, agriculture 
and the Christian religion. When it became 
necessary for Rome to withdraw from the is- 
land, the native Britons witnessed their depar- 
ture with evidence of sincere grief, coupled with 
prayer for their early return and protection. 

There is a vast difference between a war of 
extermination, such as this, and a war of con- 
quest. In the latter case, a few battles may be 
fought in which but a small percentage of the 
population of either side takes part, and in 
many instances the defeated peoples are often 
unaware of any perceptible change in their con- 
dition, and frequently it is only a question of 
the slight difference in task masters. A war of 
extermination means the wiping out of men, 
women and children, the crudest and most 
beastly of all wars. 

What manner of descendants, even to the 
fiftieth generation, might we expect from a race 
of men and women the hands of whose ancestors 
were almost daily, for centuries, steeped in in- 
nocent human blood? 

Considering such ancestry, is it to be mar- 
veled at that cmelty and barbarism should at 
times become manifest in their offspring, as the 
race ebbs and flows, advancing, then again re- 
verting to type; often to the worst features of 
the primitive type? This reversal to type in 

[31] 



the individual is of frequent occurrence, and is 
in evidence constantly, but a national reversal 
conies at more or less lengthy intervals, and a 
world reversal, such as witnessed during the 
period of the great war, is a human phenomenon 
never before witnessed; all races and peoples 
having been enmeshed in the coils of virulent 
and malignant, contagious reaction. 

For several centuries the insular and conti- 
nental divisions of the Teuton family were vir- 
tually separated and scarcely came in contact 
one with the other. Each was engrossed with 
his own separate and distinct problems. For a 
length of time England was engaged in a two- 
fold task — exterminating the natives and re- 
pelling the invasions of the inhabitants of the 
northern part of the island; also the adventur- 
ers from the mainland. During this time the 
continentals were engaged in inter-tribal wars, 
together with an occasional excursion of a more 
or less ambitious nature to the south, east and 
west. But each member was steadily, but in a 
different direction, coming toward both light 
and nationality. 

It may indeed be truthfully stated, that no 
serious rivalry or political jealousy could be 
noted, to any great extent, between these peo- 
ples prior to 1871 when Germany humbled 
France, and as a result, a great continental na- 
tion came into being. Great Britain immedi- 
ately sat up and took notice. From that day on 
the watchful eye of Britain was constantly on 
the new giant of the nations. 

Well might she view with apprehension, if 
not alarm, the union or amalgamation of these 
virile kingdoms and states into one mighty 
whole. She saw, not a loose connection of alien 
provinces, each entering with mental or selfish 

[32] 



reservations, but she beheld a loyal union of 
twenty-five sovereign states — four kingdoms, 
seven principalities, six grand-duchies, five 
duchies, three free towns, not mentioning the 
wealthy provinces of Alsace-Lorraine all ex- 
cepting the latter entering the Union imbued 
with a common spirit of nationality, a common 
language, an intensified community spirit, 
showing clearly to the world that the ambition 
of one was the ambition of all. 

At last Germany became a nation. At last 
this great people had found themselves. And 
what did all this mean to startled Britain? 

Here was a new united nation of forty-five 
millions of people, of Teuton blood, in many 
respects the salt of the earth, highly intelligent, 
educated, industrious, inventive, now fired with 
ambition, occupying a country possessing, next 
to America, the most wonderful natural and 
varied resources in all the world. Had not 
these same people, even when divided, made 
more or less of a successful bid for world trade? 
Now that they were united and under ambitious 
and skillful leadership, what naturally might 
be anticipated! And, has history not proven 
that these feelings of disquietude of the British 
Were more real than imaginary? They saw 
clearly a real rival for world trade, a rival that 
had not only every element of initiative that 
they possessed, but also infinitely greater nat- 
ural resources. This is indeed putting the case 
mildly. In addition to this, was not the horri- 
ble suspicion beginning to dawn on her for the 
first time, that Britain had reached the apex of 
her greatness, and that already national old age 
had set in with all the accompanying evidences 
of atrophy and decline? 

There has been, as history attests, the inevita- 
[33] 



ble sad day that comes into the lives of nations 
as into the lives of individuals. A day surely 
comes to the reigning queen of beauty and fash- 
ion when she looks into the mirror and detects 
for the first time the wrinkle or the tell-tale 
gray hair, the sure precursor of evil days to 
come; or like the heretofore invincible athlete, 
with years of conquest to his credit, suddenly 
discovers a powerful rival looming on the hori- 
zon at a time when he himself, as well as his 
friends, detects flabbiness where once there was 
firmness, and growing weakness where once 
there was strength. And that day at last ar- 
rived for Britain; Britain the invincible, the 
mother of nations and the unchallenged arbiter 
of the world. And what was the evidence of 
atrophy, senility and decay? 

Had Britain not already performed the 
functions of motherhood? She had performed 
this function by both parentage and adoption. 
Already her blood children had for the most 
part reached maturity and had embarked in 
independent business for themselves, without 
consulting the wishes or interests of the parent. 
One of her first bom and the most promising of 
the progeny, by reason of arrogant and inhu- 
man treatment administered prior to 1776, was 
not only cold and indiiferent but even to a de- 
gree hostile, to the motherland. 

Canada and Australia had reared tariff walls 
against the world, the British Isles included. 
They clearly gave the motherland notice that 
they did not consider that there should be either 
love or friendship in trade. They naturally 
preferred, as a first choice, to purchase their 
own products, and when that would not be ex- 
pedient to trade where they could do so to the 
greatest advantage, regardless of family ties. 

[34] 



They condescended to offer to give the parent 
preference, provided she granted the same con- 
cession, but the acceptance of this proposition 
on the part of Britain would be suicidal and 
diametrically opposed to those trade principles 
which for many years were the foundation of 
her very economic existence. Such a proposi- 
tion was in every sense impracticable, for the 
reason that Britain's commercial supremacy 
depended primarily on cheap material and 
cheap labor. To place a tariff on all but colonial 
imports would, without doubt, raise the cost of 
supplies to the British consumer and manufac- 
turer. If it did not, what advantage would 
there be for the colonist? If, for instance, an 
import duty raised the price of wheat to the 
British consumer, the price of flour would rise, 
bread inevitably would become dearer, the cost 
of living would therefore advance, labor of ne- 
cessity would demand and obtain higher living 
wages, these wages would increase the cost of 
the manufactured article, and this increased 
cost, owing to keen competition, would exclude 
Britain from many world markets, as some of 
these markets had been held on a 3 to 5% mar- 
gin of profit. 

Britain could not coerce her blood offspring 
into family trade relations, and the only thing 
left for her was to control as best she could, 
her adopted children, such as India ; over whom 
she exercised complete authority. Even in this 
her hands were tied for the reason that in order 
to appear consistent she had to apply free trade 
principles with the result that she could claim 
no greater trade advantage than enjoyed under 
these circumstances, by her most hated compet- 
itor. In addition to this her treatment of these 
dependent possessions had to be both equitable 

[35] 



and enlightened, if she continued to profit by 
the salutary lesson that America taught her 
many years ago; a lesson that she took seri- 
ously, and as a result, colonists, such as Canada 
and Australia, her younger and smaller chil- 
dren, have been treated with kindness and 
consideration, a circumstance these lusty young- 
sters do not appreciate, or at least do not give 
proper credit to the source of their full and 
complete freedom of to-day. 

No matter what theories are presented, sensi- 
ble men will always keep their eyes on, and be 
guided by, concrete instances. And what were 
the concrete instances that were pressing 
themselves on the thoughtful Britisher at the 
particular time of which we speak; at the time 
when this huge Grermanic competitive giant ap- 
peared on the horizon? 

Who could fail to note the progressive flabbi- 
ness of fibre, that was everywhere in process, 
impairing, if not now threatening, the health, if 
not the life of the nation? A large percentage 
of the inhabitants were now little better than 
idlers living on incomes the source of which 
must be examined and analyzed, in order to 
appreciate the effect of certain forces on na- 
tional life and character. 

Britain at that particular time was suffering 
from a disease that at the present time is 
threatening the economic well-being of America. 
For centuries the manufacturers and merchants 
of Britain dominated the trade of the entire 
world. The inevitable result was that great 
trade balances were established in Britain's 
favor in nearly every country on the habitable 
globe — balances that represented clear profits. 
These balances in most cases were allowed to 
remain drawing high interest; Britain, there- 

[36] 



fore, was receiving tribute in the form of inter- 
est from the entire world. To a measurable 
extent, a large percentage of the British people 
were now living, not on their immediate earn- 
ings, but on their incomes, and these incomes 
derived from foreign sources, a large percent- 
age of which had been established by the fa- 
thers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers of 
those enjoying such incomes. Had the British 
people as a whole, instead of individuals, been 
the recipients of these incomes from outside 
sources, the evil to that extent would have been 
mitigated; but who can measure the softening 
and deleterious effect that these incomes had on 
the life and character of a considerable section 
of the British people? It created and sustained 
an idle class, in fact a separate and distinct 
class, one that was not in the least dependent on 
other branches of society, unsympathetic, proud 
and selfish. 

' ' They toiled not, neither did they spin, ' ' and 
in full view of the struggling mass of their 
countrymen, they arrayed themselves in fine 
linen and lived sumptuously on the good things 
gathered from every land and every clime. 

What would be the inevitable effect of this 
on the body politic? The school boy who had 
his first experience in athletics can answer. 
Seeing these idlers on every hand enjoying one 
continuous holiday, is it a wonder that the work- 
ing class had become insistent in their demand 
for more holidays and shorter hours'? Cut off 
by hostile tariff from her own children, her own 
natural resources on the wane, compelled by 
conditions to haul raw materials from the ends 
of the earth for her factories and furnaces and 
then haul back again in the finished product ; a 
large percentage of her people, idlers and non- 

[37] 



producers and tlie balance demanding short 
hours and extra holidays, what position was she 
in when a great and formidable world competi- 
tor made his appearance? Surely the future 
was dark and threatening. 

As the years went on the worst fears of the 
British were realized — competition became 
keener, market after market was either invaded 
or captured by her hated rival — even the home 
market had to be divided with the German. 

All over Germany, almost over night, imme- 
diately after 1871 sprang up myriads of woolen 
and cotton mills, shipyards, chemical plants, and 
huge roaring blast furnaces which gradually 
silenced the great manufactories of Leeds, Glas- 
gow, Birmingham and Manchester. In every 
section of the known globe, civilized and unciv- 
ilized, the Englishman was driven to despera- 
tion as he saw the fortunes of the commercial 
war going against him — a commercial war which 
all observers knew, owing to the character of 
the trade combatants, would end in a blood war 
— not a war between products — but ultimately 
between men. 

This losing commercial war was distressing 
enough for the Islander, but the worst awaken- 
ing was yet to come. Germany, owing to the 
increased importance of her foreign trade had 
decided on a powerful navy. If the British had 
spasms when they saw their trade going to 
another, they now had convulsions when they 
beheld the growth of the German navy. 

England had for many years exclusive world 
monopoly of a navy. Her justification for this 
great, grim machine was that a powerful 
weapon, such as this, was necessary to protect 
her people at home and her trade abroad. This 
belief with her not only became a religion but a 

[38] 



fetisli. No one in the world was ungenerous 
enough to deny Britain the security that these 
moving fortresses afforded when they were em- 
ployed for the legitimate purpose of home and 
fireside protection. But there was a growing 
feeling in the minds of people possessing inde- 
pendent thought, that there did not exist on the 
top of this earth a country good enough, disin- 
terested enough and just enough to be given 
exclusively the use of so great and far-reaching 
a weapon — a weapon capable of so much de- 
struction and intimidation. It may be true that 
Britain used this great power benevolently and 
with moderation. But what self-respecting man 
or nation wants a club held over his head, that 
possibly might come down at any moment that 
the holder deemed necessary either for punish- 
ment, discipline or reproof? And who can say 
truthfully that the chief thought of Great 
Britain in navy expenditure was home protec- 
tion? In her navy expenditures was not her eye 
singled on those craft that could be used abroad, 
while with less expenditure in purely coast de- 
fense equipment she could have found the nec- 
essary home protection? 

Considering all circumstances, is it to be won- 
dered that a proud, ambitious rival should seek 
to lay the foundation of a navy which should at 
least dispute the pretensions of Britain to the 
exclusive physical monopoly of the high seas? 

Some may say that this act of Germany was 
not generous, but when had Germany been the 
beneficiary of Britain's overflowing good will 
and generosity? If there are such evidences, 
history is silent. 

The possible exception to this may be found 
in the fact that in 1870, before the declaration of 
war on Prussia by France, Britain unanimously 

[39] 



sided with Prussia and applauded the resistance 
of the German people against the gross and in- 
solent attitude of Napoleon III. In a measure, 
by this token of sympathy, the British people 
made up for the ignoble exhibition of temper 
that they showed toward the same people only 
fifteen years previously at the time Britain and 
France failed to draw Prussia into the Crimean 
War — a war that had for its object, the placing 
of Turkey in a secure position in European 
society. [The Prussian King's refusal to be a 
party to this brought down on his head the 
vials of wrath of the British. He was odiously 
nicknamed by the British, and held up publicly 
as a weakling, having no decision of character^ — 
and a sensualist of the worst type ; all of which 
history repudiates to-day. Of course, it is 
within the knowledge of all that there never 
has been love lost or sympathy wasted on either 
side, as the dominant Englishman and the domi- 
nant Prussian are too nearly alike for real or 
artificial sentimental outpourings. 

It has been mentioned that Britain showed 
marked sympathy for Prussia at the opening 
of hostilities with France. But that sympathy 
was short lived ; in fact, it began to wane when 
the first battles showed Prussia's remarkable 
fighting ability. Any sympathy that was left, 
disappeared completely when it became known 
that Germany had exacted the rewards of the 
victor and was emerging from the conflict a 
world power of the first magnitude. 

For twenty-five years prior to 1914 Great 
Britain was frantically fighting to hold foreign 
trade; or busily engaged in building two ships 
to Germany's one. At frequent intervals, in or- 
der to relieve the immense drain on her re- 
sources, she made overtures to her rival, look- 

[40] 



ing to the curtailment of sea armament, but 
inasmuch, as her propositions always left her 
in the firm possession of her ancient, if not 
time-honored club, Germany of necessity was 
compelled to decline such overtures. 

As a result of all this a horrible war between 
these great powers was brewing and being fo- 
mented. Seeing that she was being rapidly 
relegated to the rear commercially, Britain pro- 
ceeded to use subterranean means of a very 
doubtful nature to head off her rival. She be- 
gan to encircle Germany with a cordon of 
alliances and *' understandings." She capital- 
ized French hatred for the German, Belgian 
distrust, and Russia's inordinate ambition. 
Germany was not blind to this menace. As a 
result of it she was compelled to double and 
triple her armament expenditures — causing a 
terrific strain on the financial resources of the 
country. 

The powder was being rapidly piled up for 
the coming, inevitable explosion. The murder 
of the Austrian Crown Prince and Princess fur- 
nished the spark. 

What peculiar emotions take possession of 
one's mind and soul as he views Britain's entry 
into the great war ! It was but yesterday, with 
the exception of one province, that the empire 
was wrapped as if in a mantle of peace ; without 
even a premonition of the passions that, a few 
hours at most, would be tearing every heart 
from its mooring. It was as if a summer's sea 
in an hour had been lashed by the fury of a 
typhoon. Fear, cupidity, revenge, hatred and 
super-patriotism took possession of the nation ; 
blinded and infuriated, they cast themselves 
over a precipice into Europe's seething mael- 
strom. 

[41] 



Even six years after this debacle it is difficult 
to account for this spontaneous, national aberra- 
tion. Under what law, psychological or socio- 
logical, may it be classified? 

Seeking in vain for a solution, I overlooked a 
possible one that was at my very side. I found 
it in Dexter — Dexter my companion and friend. 
I will have you know, first of all, that Dexter is 
a dog ; that by the way, is the worst thing and 
the best thing that may be said of him. To refer 
to a human being as a ''man" means nothing. 
A man is an animal who walks on two legs 
(when he is sober) and makes known his wants 
by wagging his tongue. There are men and 
men and dogs and dogs. There are men made 
in the image and likeness of their Creator; 
whose heads tower above the clouds and who 
breathe the pure air of God's sunlit truth; and 
there are men who crawl on their bellies, snake- 
like, and wallow in the mire of sin, ignorance, 
superstition and crime. 

We are told that the dog descended from the 
wolf, and man from the ape. If this is true. 
Dexter and I, his companion, had very much of 
an even start insofar as remote ancestry is con- 
cerned. 

A philosophic personage once remarked, the 
more he saw of men the better he liked dogs. 
That statement would hold true, to a greater 
degree, the past six years than at any other 
period in the history of either man or dog. 
There are men, even those whose hands have 
recently been dipped in human blood, who will 
take exception to the claim that, in some re- 
spects at least, human beings have not reached 
the high plane in evolution that the average 
dog has attained. 

It has been truly said that there is at least 
[42] 



hope for mankind when we remember that the 
dog descended from the wolf. Consider, if you 
will, the blood-curdling- ferocity of the wolf 
either singly or in the pack, tearing each other 
limb from limb, either through hatred or by 
reason of hunger, and then contemplate their 
lineal descendant of to-day, Dexter, the protec- 
tor of little children, a boon companion, and a 
faithful friend. 

There are, in all likelihood, thousands and 
thousands of years of evolution between the 
cowardly, treacherous, ferocious, demon-eyed 
inhabitant of the wild and that gentle and lova- 
ble creature of to-day that goes bounding down 
the path to greet his master and give him a 
joyous welcome to home and fireside. Evolu- 
tion, patiently but masterfully, has done its 
work ; progress at least that has kept pace with 
man's advancement. 

If evolution has performed such marvels for 
the dog, there is hope that it will do as much for 
man ; that it will in time eliminate some of those 
attributes that mark him, too frequently indeed, 
as little removed from some of the beasts of the 
forests or reptiles of the jungle. 

It is true, there are dogs that may and do 
retain some of the vicious characteristics of 
their ancestor, the wolf ; but it is also true that 
the blood and brain and heart of a very large 
percentage of mankind, at times at least, is well 
under the influence and domination of the an- 
cestral beast from which it is claimed they 
sprang. Look around you in any community, 
and behold manifest evidence of this. 

Now, there are a number of dogs in the im- 
mediate neighborhood where Dexter lives, some 
of high and more of low degree. As a general 
thing he gets on with these very much as human 

[43] 



beings are wont to with their neighbors. He 
passes some with an air of disdain, with others 
he is on pleasant speaking terms, while others 
he receives and visits. But there is one dog just 
down the street that is an exception to all we 
have said — that is Pat. Pat is a brindle bull, 
with one good clear blue eye (the only good eye 
he possesses) and the other a sickly white, re- 
sembling a marble set in a hole. Pat has more 
scars to his credit than a Frenchman has war 
medals, and of them he has just as good reasons 
to be proud. Some of these he received in de- 
fense while others came while re-capturing his 
former possessions. 

But just what there was about Pat that Dex- 
ter my Scotch collie friend did not like (and 
the dislike was mutual) we never could deter- 
mine; for Pat on the whole was a good dog as 
dogs go. He scarcely ever attacked another 
of his kind without provocation; he kept 
watch over the children of his house-hold, 
and woe unto the stranger who would molest 
them. The baby in the carriage was as safe 
with Pat at its side as it would be on its 
fond mother's lap; but with all these endearing 
qualities Dexter hated him with all the hatred 
that even a human being in war is capable of. 
Dexter could be at your side peaceful as a June 
morning, his great big brown eyes radiating 
love and devotion, when suddenly he would spy 
Pat — like a shot out of a cannon, he would be 
off — and the fight would be on — and to a finish. 
When he would return it would be with down- 
cast eyes ; ashamed of himself as a man the day 
following a fall from grace in the form of a pro- 
tracted spree. He would say as best he could, 
* ' I do not understand what gets into me when I 
see that fellow — I forget everything and every- 

[44] 



body and I just feel that I want to tear him 
limb from limb." 

As the Entente Allies entered the war, the 
world beheld the distressing spectacle of the 
English bulldog and the French poodle follow- 
ing the Russian wolf into the wilderness. Truly 
they barkened to the call of the wild. 

All nations that entered the war (Belgium 
perhaps excepted), like Dexter — were conform- 
ing to one of the lowest as well as one of the 
oldest laws of nature — the law of reversal to 
type — civilization temporarily becoming bar- 
baric. 

Every nation that entered the war entered 
with a lie on its lips. Perhaps the most trans- 
parent lie of all and the one from which accrued 
the greatest sympathy and benefit for the falsi- 
fier, was that employed by Great Britain as a 
reason for her entering the world war; namely, 
to protect Belgian neutrality. This brazen dis 
tortion of the truth was accepted without ques- 
tion, not only by the majority of the British 
people, but by the unthinking masses in America 
as well. 

Now that this lie has served its purpose and 
''civilization has been saved," let us examine 
some of the outstanding phases of this question. 

Does anyone with an ounce of intellect, or 
possessing an atom of fairness, believe that 
Great Britain would not have been in the war, 
Belgium invaded or Belgium passed by? Has 
it not been the regret of England since 1870 
that she did not at that time join hands with 
France against Germany (although for their 
own selfish purposes they gave all encourage- 
ment to the Prussians before hostilities began) ? 
With France conquered and prostrate at Ger- 
many's feet, what advantage would Belgium be 

[45] 



to Britain as a buffer state? None whatever. 
Surely no one would claim for Britain that she 
sought the neutrality of Belgium for the good 
of that country — it was with an eye singled to 
her own protection. Knowing the history of 
Britain and her heartless and selfish treatment 
of small countries, we know that had it not been 
for the danger that it held for herself, for the 
future, Britain would not have risked a single 
ship, a single gun, or a single man to protect 
these people. Going to war to protect small 
nations and to maintain the sanctity of treaties 
sounds exalted; but what arrant hypocrisy on 
her part.* Look down the pages of history and 
observe the number of small nations that have 
been either swallowed, or pounded into insen- 
sibility by England, or, where that did not 
occur, she stood idly by while they were de- 
voured by larger nations. 

These instances are unnecessary here to re- 
hearse, but it will be of interest to recall one as 
showing Britain's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde per- 
formance when it comes to enforcing the sacred- 
ness of treaties. 

Be it known to all that in the early fifties of 
last century, the great big pulsating heart of 
Britain went out to the Turk, as it in 1914 
went out spontaneously to bleeding Belgium. 
This admission must be made in order to give 
credit where credit is due. Was it not by Brit- 



*It is evident that Theodore Eoosevelt did not share the be- 
lief that Britain entered the war, disinterestedly for the pur- 
pose of protecting little Belgium. In the "Outlook" of August 
23nd, 1914, he remarks: "Belgium, however, was armed and 
went to war. If she succeeds in protecting herself, it vnll be 
because she had armed and not trusted to the treaty, and be- 
cause she received aid from big military powers, who would 
have given it anyhow, as a matter of their own vital interest, 
as a matter of self-defense — not merely for the defense of 
Belgium, but for the defense of themselves." 

[46] 



ish effort that the Turk was given a safe place 
in the European family of nations, and was it 
not due to that same nation that Turkey was 
put in a position she could defy Europe, and 
as a consequence she was not afraid to commit 
those outrages from time to time that have 
shocked mankind? 

In order to protect Turkey and at the same 
time curb ravenous and barbaric Russia (after- 
wards in 1914 Britain's loyal and faithful and 
honorable ally) she insisted, in the Crimean 
war settlement, that the Black Sea should be, 
so far as war vessels were concerned, neutral- 
ized. This neutrality was strictly observed un- 
til the year of the Franco-German war, when 
Russia boldly and bluntly gave notice that she 
intended to ignore this portion of the treaty — 
which she did. Britain was incensed and pro- 
ceeded immediately to round up European na- 
tions to side with her in the enforcement of this 
treaty. She first approached Austria, but 
Austria declined — then Prussia was inter- 
viewed, but no encouragement was given — then 
she besought France with a like result. Had 
these powers listened to Britain at that time, 
there would have been a general European war; 
If war at that time was delayed, Britain is not 
to receive the credit. It must be observed, ho^v^- 
ever, that she did not show any disposition to 
fight — alone — for the sanctity of a treaty. She 
waited patiently for a more favorable day, a 
day when she could be sure of the necessary 
assistance. Had Germany violated Belgian neu- 
trality, and France and Russia remained neu- 
tral, may we not make a good guess how far 
Britain would have gone in the laudable enter- 
prise of upholding the sanctity of this treaty? 

The future British historian, no doubt, would 
[47] 



readily excuse his country for not trying to en- 
force the Belgian treaty as the brilliant apolo- 
gist did regarding the Black Sea incident when 
he wrote ''it would have been a piece of pre- 
posterous quixoty on the part of England to 
take on herself alone the responsibility of 
maintaining the sanctity of the treaty. ' ' 

There are three things to be learned from 
that incident; first, Britain will not fight, no 
matter what principle is involved, unless the 
outcome is considered a foregone conclusion; 
second, that she would have been guilty of 
bringing on a general European war in 1870 on 
so trivial a thing as the enforcement of the 
neutrality of the Black Sea, had she succeeded 
in dragging other nations in with her; third, in 
1914 she was willing to prostitute herself by 
making an alliance with Russia, a self-confessed 
violater of the sanctity of treaties, in war on 
another power that she deemed guilty of the 
same offense. 

This, now celebrated, treaty, was first signed 
in the early part of the last century and re- 
vised and strengthened later. It will be remem- 
bered, the causes that led to its revision. 
Britain discovered that a deal was on between 
Prussia and France whereby under certain 
conditions, France would become the possessor 
of Belgium. Britain naturally stepped in and 
frustrated the deal. As both parties were 
caught red-handed, they were ready to sign any 
guarantee of Belgian neutrality. Accompany- 
ing the serious turn that this affair took, there 
remains the ludicrous side. In 1914 it became 
necessary to go to war to uphold this treaty. 
And what spectacle did we behold? We find 
loyally at Britain's side in this sacred cause, 
Russia, the arch violator of the Black Sea 

[48] 



treaty, and France, who in 1866 was not only a 
prospective violator but actually ready to annex 
that unfortunate little country ; and in addition 
to these, her latest ally, pagan Japan, who, in 
conjunction with Great Britain herself, violated 
the neutrality of China, against China's solemn 
protest, by landing Japanese and British troops 
on Chinese soil to capture the German posses- 
sion, Kiao-Chau. 

Treaties of this kind are generally one-sided 
affairs, and are simply declarations governing 
future purposes and behavior. In this case, 
Prussia signed a certain engagement without 
a compensating equivalent. This in law would, 
of necessity, render the document worthless. 
She entered this engagement at that particular 
time to calm a distressed and excited neighbor. 
Had Prussia refused to sign, Britain certainly 
could not have gone to war to compel her to do 
so, as she could not have deemed her guilty of 
violating a treaty unless she had violated it. 
Germany was, perhaps, as much a sly knave 
in signing a document such as this, when she 
knew it would be repudiated should repudiation 
become necessary, as Britain was a fool to ex- 
pect the engagement to be kept, no matter what 
circumstances might present themselves. 

Theodore Roosevelt understood this when he 
made the following declaration, as printed in 
the ''Outlook" in the fall of 1914: ''When 
giants are engaged in a death struggle, as they 
reel to and fro, they are certain to trample on 
whomever gets in the way of the huge, stormy 
combatants. When before our eyes a score 
of treaties and of engagements of the most 
solemn kind are those literally not to be worth 
the paper they are written on, there is some- 
thing both pathetic and ludicrous in the belief 

[49] 



that signing names to a bit of paper will of and 
by itself forward the cause of peace. ' ' 

Practically the same view of this treaty was 
held by Mr. Gladstone, when, in the British 
House of Commons he said : ' ' I am not able to 
subscribe to the doctrine of those who have 
held, in this house, what plainly amounts to the 
assertion that the simple fact of the existence 
of a guaranty is binding on all parties to it, 
irrespective, altogether, of the particular posi- 
tion in which it finds itself at the time in which 
the occasion for acting on the guaranty arises." 

It is true that Germany may have had ulterior 
reasons for the invasion of Belgium — dark and 
diabolical — and thus breaking an obligation; 
but who can truthfully say that she did not have 
a parallel reason to act as she did, if we agree 
that a country's self -protection and safety is 
the first duty of its rulers — as self-preservation 
is the first supreme duty of society. I may, for 
instance, sign an agreement with my neighbor 
not to cross his property, or in any way tres- 
pass on it, but if I saw my house in flames and 
my family endangered, would I not only be 
justified in violating my agreement by crossing 
his property in order to make haste, but would 
be well within my moral rights in felling any 
person who would stand in my way? 

All military authorities in Europe were 
agreed that, owing to a general preparedness, 
much depended on the swiftness of the first 
blow, when hostilities were inevitable. When 
the life of a nation is at stake, its rulers have 
on their shoulders a respojisibility that trans- 
cends all other responsibilities. To split hairs 
on questions of honor or niceties, in such an 
emergency, would be as idiotic as for a man on 
the way to the hospital with a friend bleeding 

[50] 



to death, to delay reaching there, and give as an 
excuse that he did so in order not to violate the 
traffic speed law. 

War is not a parlor affair, a Sunday school 
picnic or a fashion parade. War is hell from 
the start and hell to the finish, and no soil is 
sacred on hell's borders. You might just as 
well try to draw an arbitrary neutral line be- 
tween paradise and purgatory, between sanity 
and insanity, or east and west, as to name the 
boundaries, the exits, or entrances for the arch- 
demon War. 

Political policies are influenced, as they should 
be, by time, place and circumstances. No insti- 
tution is permanent — all earthly things are in 
the course of change — transitory. Nations, like 
men, in their action, will always be guided by 
exigencies and circumstances — ^more especially 
when it is a question of life or death. 

It is, of course, undoubtedly true that 
some nations observe the terms of treaties more 
religiously than others. It may even be true 
that Britain has more of a clean record than 
most countries, considering the magnitude of 
such undertakings. But it must be observed 
that a larger percentage of the British so-called 
treaties are not, strictly speaking, treaties at 
all — ^merely concessions — stipulating what the 
other party agrees to do. And it will be found 
in a large number of these cases that bullets 
have had a great deal to do with the acquiescence 
in these terms — lead bullets of the Marlborough, 
Roberts and Kitchener type; supplemented by 
the no less potent silver bullets of the Lloyd 
George variety. 

When nations play for the favorable public 
opinion of the world (for public opinion is an 
asset as tangible as gold), and seek to prove the 

[51] 



guilt of their opponents and their own inno- 
cence, it is imperative, in the interest of justice, 
to know whether or not all parties are appearing 
in court with clean or unclean hands. With 
this in view, it would be unfair, in this inquiry, 
if we did not inquire, to some extent, into the 
antecedents of the nation that has made the vio- 
lation of treaties her reason for entering the 
world war. 

We do not have to go very far back into inter- 
national criminal history to find the trail of the 
serpent leading to the nation which has been 
assuming the role of *' protector" of small peo- 
ples, and the observer of international cove- 
nants. 

A narration of the case of Egypt, fresh in the 
minds of everybody, will suffice to prove Brit- 
ain's hypocrisy, without even referring to the 
fact that she guaranteed the independence of 
Persia, yet she, by a secret deal, allowed Russiai 
to practically possess her. She also guaranteed 
the independence of Korea, yet she allowed her 
ally, Japan, to possess and enslave these unfor- 
tunate people. She sanctioned the division of 
Morocco between her friends, France and Spain. 

Twenty-eight years ago, Britain, like the giant 
python, after duly covering its victim with 
slime, began the process of swallowing Egypt, 
and the last gulp was taken on December 18, 
1914, and now Egypt is an undigested lump in 
Britain's belly. This fact must be brought 
clearly to the attention of all our people, par- 
ticularly those who sided with Britain in the late 
struggle, believing that she was fighting for high 
international principles. 

Britain began her real occupation of Egypt in 
1892, and for what purpose? Ostensibly for 
putting down an insurrection, but really to col- 

[52] 



lect bonded and other indebtedness, much of 
which was purchased by her at a small fraction 
on the dollar. Promise after promise was made 
by Britain that she would withdraw from that 
country, but she kept complete control, and on 
December 18, 1914, as has been stated, removed 
the lawful Khedive and appointed one of her 
own choice, who would be a mere tool, and was 
maintained against the wishes of the people of 
Egypt, and by the power of Britain's military 
forces. The British Press acknowledged from 
that date that the flag of Britain floated over 
Egypt. 

On Monday, August 25, 1919, the Honorable 
Joseph W. Folk, ex-Governor of Missouri, 
recently chief counsel for the Department of 
State, and ex-Counsel for the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, appeared before the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, and gave the 
following testimony: ''Great Britain first en- 
tered Egypt on the pretext of protecting the 
Khedive against the rebels among his own peo- 
ple. She then continued to stay on the pretext 
of protecting the people against the tyranny of 
the Khedive. So at the beginning of the war 
England was occupying Egypt in that way. 

*'0n December 18, 1914, Great Britain seized 
Egypt through the appointment of a Sultan by 
Great Britain, and now, contrary to the prin- 
ciples of the covenant of the League of Nations, 
and her previous promises. Great Britain asks 
that Egypt be turned over to Great Britain with- 
out the consent of the Egyptians, as a subject 
and conquered nation. 

''Further: that the Egyptian Commission, 
now in Paris, is in virtual imprisonment. They 
are not allowed to send their representatives 
to the United States. Great Britain does not 

[53] 



seem anxious that the people of the United 
States should know the story of Egypt. 

''Thus, by the seizure, Great Britain has 
added to her enormous acquisitions 350,000 
square miles, much as rich as Illinois or Iowa, 
and 13,000,000 souls." 

This very modern instance, as above set forth, 
without going further, will show the cant and 
hypocrisy of Britain in her world heralded 
claims of entering the war as a defender of 
small nations and the upholder of the sanctity 
of international agreements. This fact, clearly 
understood and established, will do more to 
clear the atmosphere, so that world affairs may 
be seen in their true light and relation, than any- 
thing we may well conceive. 

Why, then, did Britain go into the war? We 
have seen that we cannot take her word. Her 
reason, we have found to be false and hypo- 
critical. Her record and the facts are against 
her. 

We have to judge nations precisely as we 
would individuals. In the case of a man charged 
with murder, a motive must be shown. Britain, 
by some, is charged w^ith a very grave offense. 
She is not charged with wantonly bringing on 
the war, but with criminally refusing to stay 
the hand that unleashed the dogs of war. Brit- 
ain's crime was criminal passiveness, not crim- 
inal activeness. She wanted war, under certain 
conditions, and yet she did not want war. No 
doubt, she recoiled from the thought of war — 
that portion of her that was highly civilized 
recoiled from the horrible prospect — but at the 
same time circumstances impelled her to play 
two parts. Two spirits took possession of her ; 
the spirit of light, and the spirit of darkness. 
Her better nature told her to stop the war at 

[54] 



all cost, and take European leadership until 
sanity would again be enthroned. The spirit 
of darkness said to her : ' ' This is your opportu- 
nity — seize it." Instead of deciding she hesi- 
tated. To ease her conscience, she importuned 
Germany to stay the hand of Austria. Ger- 
many's reply came instantly: "See the Czar — 
I only move if he does." Britain knew in her 
heart, that Russia's mobilization was bringing 
Germany into the conflict, and that one sure way 
to ward off hostilities, was to persuade Russia 
to cease mobilizing — to cease mobilizing even 
at the peril of losing Britain as an ally. This 
she did not do. She pleaded with the leader of 
the Triple Alliance, her enemy, but failed to use 
all means in her power to check Russia — ^her 
erstwhile friend. Does anyone dare state that 
Russia would have gone to war without the im- 
plied assistance of France and Britain; much 
less imagine France would have entered the 
war without a tacit British understanding or 
the assurance of a firm Russian understanding? 
What was it that Britain asked Germany to 
do? Was it not to curb her dependable ally, 
Austria, while that ally was in a state of 
national high temper, beginning as she was, to 
punish Servia for the atrocious killing of her 
Prince and Princess. Austria was justly and 
naturallj'' enraged. She wanted satisfaction of 
a very practical and very human kind. Ger- 
many replied in substance : ' * My friend Austria 
is aggrieved, she is righteously indignant. She 
is temporarily in high temper. I believe, for 
her own good, Servia should be chastised, there- 
fore, tell your friend Russia to lay down her 
arms — she has not been hurt, she has not been 
insulted or angered, her national honor has not, 
as yet, been violated." If Britain took this ad- 

[55] 



vice and acted accordingly on it, we have no 
record of it. 

Now, presuming Germany had coerced Aus- 
tria, no doubt the great war would have been, 
at least temporarily averted — how long no one 
can tell. In that she would have alienated the 
only country she could reasonably depend upon, 
in the future, in case of a life and death strug- 
gle, with Russia and France combined. Aus- 
tria's good will and support was absolutely 
indispensable to Germany, owing to her critical, 
isolated location. Had Britain coerced Russia, 
and Russia became estranged thereby, this loss 
would not have been so vital to Britain as the 
loss of Austria to Germany, for England was 
still safe, without an ally, behind her moving 
walls of iron and steel. 

Thousands in Britain at the critical time saw 
the danger. They pleaded with the British Gov- 
ernment to curb Russia as the only logical thing 
to do under the circumstances, but they were not 
heeded. This was vital. Bearing on this point 
of view, the representative of the Associated 
Press in London, cabled the Los Angeles Times 
and other American newspapers the following 
important summary, dated London, August 1st, 
1914: ''The feature of the war situation here 
to-day is the growing intensity of the debate, 
whether Britain should or should not take part 
in the threatened European slaughter. Those 
desiring peace are concentrating a strong fire 
on Premier Asquith and Sir Edward Grey; de- 
mand that Russia be commanded to halt on the 
penalty of Britain's repudiation of the Triple 
Entente. Their argument first is : that Britain 
is not only free as regards legal obligations but 
is free on the point of honor, hence the right 
to hold aloof from any war that it does not 

[56] 



sanction; secondly: that Russia has already 
violated the entente by its anti-British proceed- 
ings in Persia and elsewhere in central Asia; 
thirdly : that civilization would be better off with 
Germany dominating the continent than Russia 
in the dominant position. 

*'A solemn warning is sounded against the 
colossal mass of Slavic ignorance and barbarism 
that is sweeping over Europe, as barbarians 
swept over it at the time of the great migrations. 
They declare that the Slavic race in its whole 
existence has not produced more than a dozen 
first rate men, and that Britain must not co- 
operate with such a power in assailing the benefi- 
cent civilization of the Germanic peoples. 
These views are supported by letters and tele- 
grams from individuals and societies, and by 
personal appeals by some of the ablest and most 
noted men in the United Kingdom. ' ' 

The British Ministry did not take this ad- 
vice, but spent their precious time in sending 
notes to Germany until Russia, Germany and 
France had drifted into war, and were already 
at each others' throats. Britain, mysteriously, 
was held back from checking Russia, as if by 
the unseen hand of her darkest past. 

On August 5th, Great Britain, after seeing 
Russia, France and Belgium at war on her great 
rival, decided that her time for striking had at 
last arrived. 

As the Los Angeles Daily Times of August 
2nd significantly stated, editorially, "If it con- 
tinues to look like England's opportunity, there 
will be a noise like the crack of doom over 
there." And was not this Britain's opportu- 
nity? Was there anything more to be desired? 
(There was her hated rival — the rival that was 
rapidly relegating her to the rear, commercially, 

[57] 



now surrounded by enemies — 180,000,000 Rus- 
sians on her eastern border and 40,000,000 
revengeful French on her western border, all 
bent on dismembering and dismantling Ger- 
many. Could not Britain, according to accepted 
views, at that time, play a safe and sure game ? 
Of the belligerents, was she not the most envi- 
able of all? Her people were safe from attack. 
The great battles would be fought on soil other 
than her own. Her fleet, long in idleness, could 
now sweep the seven seas clean of the enemy. 
She knew Germany had only a nominal and nor- 
mal supply of food, and this would only last a 
given length of time, and then starvation — a 
heretofore useful ally — would help finish the 
undertaking. 

Her four allies, Eussia, France, Belgium and 
Starvation, were thought sufficient to over- 
whelm Germany without her furnishing much of 
her manpower. 

Immediately, Great Britain announced her 
war aims, the complete physical victory over 
her enemy. This announcement adhered to, 
made it impossible for Germany, at any time 
^ in the future, to compromise. There was noth- 
ing left but abject surrender or fight to a finish. 
Germany had to make her arrangements accord- 
ingly. Now what did the fulfillment of these 
war aims mean to Britain? It would mean a 
crippled commercial rival. It would mean the 
return of Alsace-Lorraine to France, taking 
from Germany the coal and iron — which had 
been the basis of her competitive industry. It 
would mean the capture of the German fleet — 
dead or alive — either at the bottom of the sea 
or floating gracefully into a British harbor, a 
British prize, her share of the prospective war 
loot. It meant not only that Germany would 

[58] 



be crushed, but in the crushing process, Russia 
would be more or less dismantled as a result of 
her collision with Germany, and India, there- 
fore, would be safe for at least another genera- 
tion. In other words — she would by this pro- 
cess get rid of two rivals at one and the same 
time. And what of the German colonies ? Noth- 
ing, then, about these was mentioned but the 
British lion, with a far-off look in his eyes, was 
licking contemplatively his immense chops. 

If, in passing a house you discovered a man 
crawling through a window, and you questioned 
him regarding his intentions, and he told you 
that he was going in to protect a child from 
an attack — ^you may well pass on with your sus- 
picions dispelled, but if on your return you find 
him emerging from a wrecked neighborhood, 
the owners put to flight, and found this man and 
his friends collecting everything of value in 
sight, you naturally would feel that you were 
deceived. 

If we had any doubts of the good intentions 
of the Triple Entente when the war began, what 
must we now think after reviewing the terms of 
the Peace Treaty, which has been presented for 
the scrutiny of a startled world I 

It is said that every man has his price. This 
price may be money or honor, or even safety. 
Britain's ''price" in entering the war may not 
have been either indemnity or territory, but it 
certainly was a crushed rival, and the German 
Fleet ''dead or alive." These were the two 
things that Britain wanted, and her allies were 
welcome to all the rest (perhaps with the ex- 
ception of the German colonies). Britain got 
these things, but at what cost! Hundreds of 
thousands of her young manhood are buried in 
a foreign soil; the maimed and diseased are 

[59] 



shuffling up and down every highway and by- 
way, where the British flag floats, around the 
world ; a crushing debt lies on every household 
in the land; her foreign credits are nearly all 
wiped out; now a debtor, no longer a creditor 
nation; her people discontented at home and 
discredited abroad; herself one of the most ap- 
palling victims of ''Peace by complete physical 
victory. ' ' 

Had Britain's leaders in August, 1914, seen 
one-tenth of the picture of the desolation of the 
world to-day, instead of wasting their efforts 
with the German Emperor, they would have 
torn themselves from the Russian alliance as 
they would from the claws of a tiger, the fangs 
of a serpent, or the embrace of a leper. 



[60] 



CHAPTER III 

Feance 

Little did Spain think when she offered the 
Spanish Crown to Leopold, a German Prince, 
that she was unwittingly sowing the seed from 
which would grow a great European war, and 
out of the settlement of that war, the greatest 
war of all history. 

The source of a mighty river may be found in 
the side of a mountain, thousands of miles away. 
The beautiful city of Chicago, built as it is on 
modem lines, was made possible by a cow kick- 
ing over a kerosene lamp fifty years ago. 

The germs of this great war were injected 
into the veins of the body politic of Europe in 
1870, when Spain offered the crown of Isabella 
to Leopold of Hohenzollern. That offer was the 
direct cause of the Franco-German war ; and the 
annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany, as 
embodied in the Peace settlement of that war, 
contributed as nothing else did to the war just 
closed. 

Napoleon III of France had long looked for a 
pretext for war. His rule was acknowledged to 
be burdensome, prosaic and commonplace. 
There was nothing in it to appeal to the 
imagination of his temperamental and volatile 
countrymen. He had been frustrated in his at- 
tempts to annex Belgium. He saw Prussia add- 
ing to her provinces. His dream was the 
annexation of all the beautiful western Ehine 
lands. As he grew desperate, he became cor- 
respondingly bolder and more daring. He was 
urged on by his Ministers, and by his festering 
servile court. The psychological moment had 

[61] 



arrived, and the pretext, events had furnished. 
When the Crown of Spain was offered to 
Leopold,* the French Emperor immediately ob- 
jected, and announced that he never would 
acquiesce in any such extension of Germany's 
prestige and power. The King of Prussia in 
deference to this protest, advised Leopold to 
refuse the proffered crown, which he immedi- 
ately did. [This ready compliance, on the part 
of William, was not sufficient for the haughty 
French Monarch and his advisers. They de- 
manded that not only Grermany should forbid 
one of her princes to take the crown, now, but 
should also agree that they would not do so in 
the future. A further demand was made that 
King William write Napoleon a letter of apol- 
ogy for having even contemplated allowing a 
German prince to accept the Spanish succession. 
In twenty-four hours Prussia was ablaze with 
indignation, and the French Ambassador was 
practically ordered to leave Berlin. France 
replied by declaring war. As every school child 
knows, the fortunes of this war were Germany's. 
Had France won, the eastern frontier of that 
country would have been the Rhine. France's 
greatest apologist will admit that. For a num- 
ber of years prior to 1870, France unmistak- 
ably showed desires for the west bank of the 
Rhine. At the Congress of Paris, held in 1856, 
Britain was compelled to curb France in that 
regard. When France's proposition came up 
before the Congress, Lord Clarendon, the Brit- 
ish representative, replied: ''That means 
plainly the Rhine border for France and the 

•Prinee Leopold was more nearly related to the Bonapartes 
than to the Hohenzollerns. His father was son of the French 
Princess, Marie Antoinette, a niece of Murat, King of Naples. 
His mother was the Princess Josephine, a daughter of the 
Princess Stephanie, sister of Hortense De Beauharnais. 

[62] 



transmutation of the German Confederacy." 
France withdrew her proposition and waited 
for a more favorable opportunity. That oppor- 
tunity came in 1870 and then she played for this 
big stake — and lost. Instead of gaining beauti- 
ful western Rhineland, she lost Alsace-Lorraine. 
''She went after wool and came back shorn." 
In this she has not shown the saving grace of 
even the gambler. 

Among gamblers the "squealer" is consid- 
ered the most despicable of all creatures; he 
plays the game as the game is played — he loses 
and forthwith he rushes out, calls the police, 
seeks the sympathy of his neighbors, and lies 
awake nights conjuring how he can "get even." 
He makes up his mind that on the first opportu- 
nity he will recover his loss by force. So he 
waits until he can get two or three sympathizers, 
and at the first opportunity the enemy is way- 
laid and after a disastrous fight, the lost treas- 
ure is regained. 

To regain these lost provinces, France stood 
ready to unite forces with any European despot 
or despots. Their quarrel, no matter how 
despicable, was her quarrel, provided her quar- 
rel would be made their quarrel. 

The day previous to the appearance on the 
horizon of the European war cloud in 1914, had 
any inhabitant of France, from school boy to 
president, been asked to name that which he 
desired above all things barring the saving of 
his own soul, he would have promptly answered : 
"Alsace-Lorraine avenged." There can be no 
two opinions regarding this. 

Now, when the war broke out and each coun- 
try was trying to clear its skirts of the guilt 
of contributing to the starting of the war, and 
when France was successfully playing the "in- 

[63] 



nocent and injured" part, was it not the duty 
of the neutral world to come out boldly and ask 
her this pertinent question : ' ' France, you have 
in season and out of season, by day and by 
night for forty years, promised to avenge 
Alsace-Lorraine and wrest these lost provinces 
from Germany. Then, when did you expect to 
do this? Was it not when you felt strong 
enough of your own strength, or, when you 
would receive the assurances that other strength 
added to your own would make the effort 
a success? That being so, have you not con- 
cluded that now is the time, and have you not 
welcomed and made your plans accordingly?" 

If France was ever going to make good her 
oft expressed intentions, surely the day to act 
had arrived. Was it not but a few years ago 
that she felt almost equal to the task herself? 
Now, with the assistance of 180 million Eus- 
sians, who would batter her enemy on the east, 
and the might and power of the British navy, 
what more could be desired? With all these 
things in her favor and to her supreme liking, 
with hatred and revenge in her heart, can she 
expect us to believe that she at the time was a 
force for peace? On the contrary, was she not 
one of the outstanding factors which made war 
not only possible but certain? In conformity 
with this, is it any wonder we find her sup- 
pressing peace demonstrations, even before 
Germany mobilized? Are there any records to 
show that she sought sincerely to stay the hand 
of Eussia? Are there any records to show that 
she sought to join Britain in bringing pressure 
to bear on Eussia? >There are no such records. 

The terrible thing in this whole connection 
was the fact that for forty years, by reason of 
her national and undying hatred for Germany, 

[64] 



France could be used at any time to support 
the subterranean machinations of Britain or the 
lustful ambitions of Russia, provided these 
were directed against German}^ Either of these 
countries separately or in combination, always 
knew they had the support of France in any 
reprisals, right or wrong, directed against Ger- 
many. This knowledge distressed many a lover 
of peace throughout the world. 

Some foolish people, even to-day, ask why it 
was necessary for Germany to attack France 
when her quarrel originally began with Russia. 
Had Germany turned her face to the east to lock 
arms with the Russian bear, France would have 
been on her back like a tiger. For days before 
hostilities broke out, France was crouched on 
her haunches, her eyes ablaze, ready to spring 
on the back of Germany. 

A few weeks before the European war cloud 
appeared in 1914, Professor Albert Leon Gui- 
rard, a brilliant French writer, contributed a 
very sympathetic and luminous article entitled 
' ' French Revenge, ' ' which was published in the 
*' Contemporary Review." This extract from 
the article will prove very enlightening : 

''Under the influences, the conception of a 
revanche arose immediately — spontaneously. It 
remained for many years the cardinal principle 
of French National life — the thought unuttered, 
but ever present, according to the dictum of 
Gambetta : 'Let us think of IT always and never 
speak of it.' Even Victor Hugo, the prophet of 
peace and universal Republic had to confess : 
'Another war, alas!! Yet it is necessary'; and 
all of the leaders of French thought, perhaps 
Renan alone was strong enough to breast the 
tide of popular passion. But la revanche had to 
be postponed ; the country had to recuperate, a 

[65] 



permanent government had to be established, 
and the army must be reorganized " 

' ' The Entente Cordiale with England left our 
treasure of suspicion and hatred undivided. The 
conflict with Germany became intense and 
broader. To the eternal Alsace-Lorraine ques- 
tion was added colonial rivalry, and all the fears 
and grievances of our new friends across the 
Channel " 

''What about the future? War is not impos- 
sible. The sudden and formidable revival of 
Chauvinistic passion in a Kepublic, which seems 
to be torn by religious and social problems, can- 
not be ignored. For the first time, perhaps, 
since 1870, France has faced the probability of 
war almost cheerfully. Germany knows this; 
it is one of the reasons for her immense arma- 
ment. If war were to break out, of course the 
odds Avould be against France, but the result 
would be by no means certain. War, in all 
probability, would mean a conflict between the 
Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance — a pos- 
sibility which makes one shudder. ' ' 

The above extract is worth reading twice. 
Here is a Frenchman who loves his country de- 
votedly, and deprecates the spirit of revenge 
that he finds rampant throughout France — 
knowing where it will eventually lead the 
nation ; pointing out in plain words the evil ef- 
fect of the British understanding with his coun- 
trymen, and at the same time sharing to some 
extent the belief shared by Frenchmen that in 
a single-handed combat with Germany the out- 
come would be doubtful. 

It is evident that that if Frenchmen had 
doubts about the outcome of a war between 
France and Germany, then surely there could 
be no doubt in their mind, if they had Russia 

[66] 



and Britain on their side. And it must not be 
overlooked, that this French writer gives an ex- 
cellent reason Avhy Germany was forced to in- 
crease her armament; a reason that should be 
carefully noted by those who are constantly con- 
demning Germany for having thoroughly 
armed. 

France, now, is again in possession of the 
provinces which she lost through her own arro- 
gance and indiscretion in 1871. She obtained 
this result by reason of the assistance given 
her by Russia, Britain and America. The re- 
turn of these provinces was made one of the 
principal war aims of the allies. The demand 
for the return of these provinces was contested 
to the last by Germany. 

The question of the return of Alsace-Lor- 
raine proved a stumbling block to early peace 
and no doubt delayed peace many months. 

France again has her provinces. The gam- 
bler's losses have been returned. Thousands of 
Americans, not counting the millions of the un- 
fortunates of other countries, are sleeping in 
French soil to-day as a result of being dragged 
from their homes by false leaders for the pur- 
pose of undoing the diabolical work of Napoleon 
III and his mad ministers. 

It is indeed sad to see the young manhood of 
the world slain in the most just cause, let 
alone such a one as this ; but it is even more dis- 
tressing to know that out of this fiery hell the 
nations of the world have not come out purged 
and purified as we all firmly hoped, but on the 
contrary, revenge, hatred, greed and cupidity 
are the four cornerstones upon which the vic- 
tors are building the future peace of mankind. 



[67] 



CHAPTER IV 

Russia 

We shall have little to say about Russia. The 
bones of her last Czar are now bleaching on the 
Siberian plains; a fit resting place, among the 
countless thousands of his victims. Old Russia 
has forever passed away. New Russia has been 
bom — born in a home of starvation, desolation 
and ruin. Out of this cradle may yet come the 
hope of mankind — who can tell? We have heard 
a new strange voice — the voice of an infant — 
but it has been heard around the world. To 
some, it is the angel whisper of hope, a rift in 
the clouds, a voice announcing the rising sun for 
the enslaved and benighted peoples of the world. 

Cruel monarchies and more or less enlight- 
ened republics have joined hands to crush 
out the life of this new born child, but in this 
they have been as impotent and as helpless as 
chaff before a hurricane. 

If Russia has a divine message for this torn 
and bleeding world, that means peace where we 
have war, plenty where we have want, freedom 
where we have slavery, hope where we have 
despair, then all the armies of the nations and 
all the gold in the world's vaults, and all the 
lies of Ananias multiplied a million times by a 
depraved and viper press, will be as helpless 
and impotent to stay its onward march as the 
murderers of Christ were two thousand years 
ago. 

In this great war all governments, whether 
despotic, limited monarchies or republics, sac- 

[68] 



rificed and betrayed their peoples. If new born 
Eussia holds for the future the germs of a true 
democracy — a democracy that will represent the 
heart and conscience of mankind, instead of the 
will of a few rulers, or leaders, God speed her 
on her way. 



[69] 



CHAPTER V 

United States 

On Tuesday, August 19th, 1919, President 
Wilson graciously consented to receive a select 
committee of the United States Senate, for the 
purpose of explaining and interpreting the 
Peace Treaty, which he had recently signed in 
Paris, in the name of the American people. 

Perhaps one of the most enlightening admis- 
sions the President made on that occasion, and 
which seems as yet generally unknown to the 
world, was his admission regarding the reasons 
for America's entering the war. People gener- 
ally assume that America went into war on ac- 
count of the acts of injustice committed by Ger- 
many against the citizens of the United States, 
in the sinking of the "Lusitania," etc., etc. We 
have found that this was all an error. These 
were not the reasons at all, as will be found 
from the following statement: 

Senator McCumber: Do you think if Ger- 
many had conmiitted no act of war or no act of 
injustice against our citizens, would we have 
gotten into the war? 

President Wilson : I think so. 

Senator McCumber : Do you think we would 
have gotten in anyway? 

President Wilson : I do. 

At last the mask has fallen from the face of 
America, or at least from the face of President 
Wilson, and now we are able to see a little 
clearer and a little further. 

[70] 



It is evident then that the American people 
held the opinion that they went into the war on 
account of the so-called acts of injustice per- 
petrated by G-ermany, and President Wilson 
went into the war for reasons of his own, which 
reasons have not yet been fully determined or 
publicly revealed. 

Now, no matter what these reasons were, 
whether good or bad, there is no question that 
the verdict of the future will record two of the 
most tragic and far-reaching blunders in the 
annals of statesmanship, namely : 

(1) The mistake of the United States in tak- 
ing a partisan side instead of remaining an ar- 
biter and a judge between the warring factions 
of Europe. 

(2) When America did decide to go into the 
war, on the side of the Entente Allies, that she 
did not exact from her associates a hard and 
fast agreement covering the terms of future 
peace; but left it until the day when Germany 
lay prostrate at her enemies' feet, at which time 
America would be of no future use to the Allies, 
and would not be in a position to exact peace 
terms that would be healing in their nature, and 
would form a basis for future permanent world 
peace. 

Immediately, on the breaking out of hostili- 
ties in Europe, the United States declared her 
official neutrality. This, indeed, was the only 
sort of neutrality that could be expected, con- 
sidering the racial complexion of America. 

It is safe to say that in America there were at 
least five families in whose veins flowed Brit- 
ish, French, Belgian or Russian blood to one of 
German or Austrian blood — and blood is natu- 
rally thicker than water. 

British capital controlled, directly or indi- 
[71] 



rectly, a large volume of American business. 
The press to a certain extent was influenced by 
British capital, or, at least, controlled by the 
interests which had direct or indirect connection 
with Lombard Street. It became evident, at the 
outset of the war, that Europe would be com- 
pelled to call on America for billions of dollars 
worth of the products of farm and factory. It 
was realized full well that owing to the British 
fleet, little of this would reach Germany — prac- 
tically all would go to the Entente Allies. Big 
business, such as this, is controlled by big busi- 
ness men, and big business men have not in the 
past overlooked the power of the press, and in 
the year of our Lord 1914, ''big business" con- 
trolled very generally the press of the United 
States — as, unfortunately for the people, they 
do to-day. 

Under these conditions, as might be expected, 
propaganda was soon set in motion to create 
a sentiment in favor of the Allies and to dis- 
credit Germany. Those papers that had given 
their views freely, the first week or ten days 
after the war began, laying the blame on all the 
nations involved, within thirty days changed 
their attitude and began decrying Germany and 
lauding the "high and honorable war aims" of 
the Entente. Billions of dollars, in long-term 
credits, must be given to Britain, France and 
Russia, and nothing must be done to discredit 
these debtors, or make their financial position 
insecure. 

The ground was ready for the seeds of such 
propaganda. As has been stated, eighty per 
cent of America by blood was Entente. For 
several years prior to 1914, there were unmis- 
takable evidences of a rapprochement between 
America and Britain — evidences that time had 

[72] 



nearly healed old sores, and past animosities 
were being forgotten. In addition to this, it 
must be admitted that, generally speaking, the 
German was not liked in this country. He was 
*' unpopular." All agreed that he was honest, 
industrious, progressive — a good citizen gener- 
ally ; but he was not accepted whole-heartedly or 
with warmth by his fellow citizens. 

The people generally did not like his pleas- 
ures, his tastes, his accent, or even his appear- 
ance; and to the ignorant portion of the 
population he was 'Hhe Dutchman." He was 
not in favor with either the politician or the 
charlatan. He did not respond readily to the 
wiles and machinations of the one or the bland- 
ishments and artifices of the other. 

All this antipathy was difficult to trace to its 
source. It was certainly prejudice — ill-founded. 
It may have been that there was a feeling of 
resentment due to the fact that the German pos- 
sessed more painstaking, technical knowledge of 
everyday affairs than his neighbors; and that 
at times he may have shown contempt for pre- 
vailing ignorance; or that if for instance a 
farmer, he set too high a standard of cleanli- 
ness, tidiness and order for some of his shift- 
less, haphazard and lazy neighbors. 

Considering the natural antipathy entertained 
for the Germans and the returning good feeling 
for Britain and the overwhelming numbers di- 
rectly or indirectly connected with the lands of 
the Entente, it can easily be seen what fertile 
field the propagandist had at his disposal ; and 
by reason of this one-sided condition, the Ger- 
man in America was placed in a very unenviable 
position. He would have been less than human 
had he not protested against the heartless and 
soulless propaganda that was placing him on 

[73] 



the defensive; and misrepresenting, in many 
respects and to a great degree, his beloved 
fatherland. 

When these people protested against what 
they honestly believed to be an injustice, they 
were reminded by many that the Grerman was in 
America by sufferance; implying that he had 
not the same right to be here as the others, and 
that if he did not like conditions, ''Why did he 
not go back to Germany?" 

It might be advisable, at this point, to examine 
the question why any people (other than In- 
dians), are here. It is, indeed, arrant assump- 
tion, to take for granted that this great virgin 
continent was made and held by the Almighty 
for any particular race or people. It is a ques- 
tion even now, whether Europeans have not 
a great sin to answer for, in robbing the Indian 
of his birthright — and wiping God's creation 
from the face of America. No matter what view 
we take of that question, there are no two opin- 
ions regarding the fact that the present inhabi- 
tants are usurpers, and so far as title is con- 
cerned, they have none — or at least no title that 
is founded on other than might. 

The German in coming to America naturally 
and rightly assumed that he had the same rights 
here as the Briton, Frenchman, Canadian or any 
other man. It was no love for America that 
brought him here, any more than it was love 
that brought any other outsider. He came to 
better his conditions. He came for the same 
reason that one million Canadians came here and 
for the same reason that a quarter of a mil- 
lion Americans went to Canada. Surely no in- 
telligent American will contend that Canadians 
settled here in order to live under a government 
permitting greater freedom or one that would 

[74] 



afford them more protection and better safe- 
guards than those under which they lived. The 
American who religiously believes that his lib- 
erties were and are perpetuated alone by his 
wonderful written Constitution, will have quite 
an awakening by a thirty days' sojourn in * Can- 
ada, where it will be manifest to him that under 
a different Constitution the Canadians enjoy 
all the blessings of liberty that his country en- 
joys. It may perhaps filter into his conscious- 
ness that Constitutions have very little to do 
with liberty, and that after all that which in 
these days has become to most Americans a 
fetish — that is, the Constitution of the United 
States — has had no more to do with American 
liberty and American progress than the label 
on a bottle has to do with the virtue of the 
ingredients that it contains. In fact, like the 
label, it may have something to do only with 
the directions of the contents — nothing more — 
nothing less. It is the people who make the 
Constitution and preserve the Constitution — 

*Altliough Canada possesses one of the most liberal govern- 
ments in the world, yet her position cannot afford complete 
satisfaction to her people. Her situation is that of a son who 
enjoys the full use of a farm while the titled remained in the 
father. Eightly he is not taken as seriously by his neighbors 
as if he were the real owner. He is often compelled to take a 
"back seat" in the presence of real owners and where principals 
only are recognized. Complete ownership tends to produce a 
spirit of true independence and responsibility. 

Real and complete independence would do much for Canada. 
It would place the Canadian people in a position to make ad- 
vantageous trade and other relations on their merits without 
regard for that sentimental loyalty for England which they 
deem necessary as part of their daily life — that loyalty which 
the late G-oldwin Smith describes as "That sentiment which 
increases in intensity the farther removed from old London." 

With full independence, Canada would no longer be the 
sentimental "cub" and feel that it would be at all times her 
duty to follow her maraudering mother into the jungle. 

Insofar as the United States is concerned, it might be of 
more advantage for Canada to remain as she is — semi-inde- 
pendent, as in that case she would remain^ to all intents and 
purposes a "hostage" for Britain's future good behavior. 

m 



not the Constitution that makes and preserves 
the people. Had the American people, in the 
beginning, simply adopted the Golden Rule as 
their Constitution, and aimed to be guided as 
a nation, as states, and as individuals by that 
principle, there is no question that progress 
would have been as marked, and liberty as 
abundant, as it is to-day. Does any man think 
that if the people of Mexico were given the 
American Constitution that they would be one 
whit better off? Their condition would be no 
more improved than to present a blacksmith 
with a medical diploma, which he had not 
earned. 

The German came to this country for precise- 
ly the same reasons that the Canadian came 
here, or the American went to northwestern 
Canada. It was not ' ' liberty ' ' that he was after 
— it was opportunity — opportunity that comes 
as a result of natural conditions — conditions de- 
pendent upon the gift of Providence and not on 
written Constitutions. He felt he could pro- 
duce more on fifty acres of rich, virgin Amer- 
ican soil, than on five acres of overworked 
German soil. It is true that he left to avoid the 
bane of Germany — militarism. That was an in- 
stitution that he naturally wished to avoid for 
his children. Although this was true, all intelli- 
gent Germans refused to blame their rulers for 
that condition, for the simple reason that most 
Germans felt the necessity of extreme military 
preparation against a repetition of invasions 
that so often in the past had almost ruined their 
country. They granted that it was necessary 
to her safety and her existence. There are some 
non-thinking people who will not agree with that 
statement. In order to appreciate Germany's 
position (and we are speaking of Germany prior 

[76] 



to 1914) let us put ourselves in that country's 
position. Assume that all the Germans should 
vacate their country and 70,000,000 free-born, 
peace-loving, intelligent, prosperous American 
citizens, together with their divine Constitu- 
tion and all their most cherished institutions, 
should take possession of Germany, and the 
70,000,000 Germans, with their Kaiser and their 
laws, should take possession of the United 
States. Now, this would be a test of institu- 
tions. It will be very interesting to know what 
would happen as a result of this experiment. In 
the first place the Americans would have as a 
new eastern neighbor, instead of the protecting 
Atlantic Ocean, a haughty, ambitious, uncom- 
promising despot, controlling 200,000,000 half 
barbarians, who had heretofore been kept in 
check at the mouth of the cannon and at the 
point of the bayonet. On her west she would 
have 40,000,000 of armed, and land-hungry peo- 
ple. We will not even mention her danger on 
the south. Considering this situation how long 
before these 70,000,000 Americans now occupy- 
ing Germany would come to the conclusion that 
every man must carry a musket? Not long in- 
deed ! And does anyone imagine for a moment 
that the lot of the average citizen would be 
even as desirable as that of his German prede- 
cessors? The extravagant and slip-shod meth- 
ods of conducting business that often mark the 
American at home, if continued on German soil, 
would in all likelihood bring disaster — Con- 
stitution or no Constitution. 

But what of the 70,000,000 of Germans in 
America, even with the Kaiser at their head? 
With all the national advantages and opportu- 
nities here would they not become a really great 
commercial nation, as they aimed to be in Ger- 

[77] 



many? And what about militarism? With little 
Canada on their north and impotent Mexico on 
their south, how long do you imagine it would 
be before their big defensive anny would fade 
away into civilian life ? 

We must always remember that circumstances 
alter cases ; and that often credit is given where 
credit is not due; and condemnation is founded 
frequently on ignorance and prejudice, instead 
of justice based on facts. 

As time passed and the war progressed, the 
position of the Germans in America became 
more difficult and, to a greater degree, unbear- 
able. They were cut off from their fatherland, 
which held within its borders, in many instances, 
their own flesh and blood. They saw that Amer- 
ica, through propaganda, was forced to view the 
great war struggle through British spectacles. 
They naturally became exasperated when they 
beheld American factories running night and 
day to supply the Entente with war material 
that was destined to blow into eternity those 
that were near and dear to them. They felt that 
America's claim to neutrality was both hypo- 
critical and un-Christian. America and Ger- 
many were as yet at peace. They were friends. 
There is, of course, no question in the mind of 
any honest man regarding the depravity of one 
who, for gold, would pass a dagger to one of two 
friends who were engaged in a death struggle ; 
and justify himself by claiming that he gave 
them an equal chance for its possession, when 
he knew full well that one of them was in such 
a physical position in the struggle that he could 
not reach the dagger — and where a full knowl- 
edge existed in advance of whose heart it would 
be driven into. A nation is equally depraved 
and cannot be called Christian that allows its 

[78] 



citizens to wax rich from a traffic which means 
death and destruction to those with whom she 
is at peace. 

When the Germans in America witnessed this 
one-sided procedure, when they saw the press, 
as time went on, more and more distorting and 
misrepresenting the German nation, and up- 
holding in every particular the aims and claims 
of her enemies, we to-day, on looking back, are 
amazed at the extreme moderation of these peo- 
ple, during the heart and soul-trying days of 
1914, and after. 

The propagandist found nothing so potent for 
poisoning and inflaming the American mind as 
''atrocities." This was a form of poison that 
could be injected into the national circulatory 
system without detection. The dispenser of this 
insidious form of propaganda could employ it 
without much fear of detection — he could in- 
ject unadulterated lies, or half lies and half 
truths, according as he wished a specific result. 
A few drops of this virus, skillfully injected, 
would madden and inflame a whole community. 

The fact that this propaganda was manufac- 
tured at this particular time in England and 
France and sent wholesale here did not seem to 
arouse the suspicions of the American people. 
It seemed as though they desired to swallow 
the mixture, without question. They did not 
seem to know or care to know, that during the 
time that the Britsh papers were filled with 
stories of atrocities. Premier Asquith made a 
notable reply regarding these in the British 
House of Commons in the following language: 

* ' No information has reached the Minister of 
War concerning the repeated stories that Ger- 
man soldiers had abused the Red Cross flag; 
killed and maimed the wounded; and killed 

[79] 



women and children, as has been alleged so often 
in stories of the battle-fields." 

Here is the Premier of Britain, speaking for 
the war office that had all access to the front and 
even behind the lines, giving the lie to the stories 
that filled the British press, and were fed with- 
out stint or limit to the American people, and 
to the people of the world. And it must be re- 
membered that at the time the press was not 
allowed anywhere near the front, and could not 
get first-hand information. 

It will be remembered that the worst stories 
of atrocities were circulated during the first 
months of the war ; particularly during the first 
few months after Germany occupied Belgium 
and France. America not being at war, her cor- 
respondents were allowed to follow the Ger- 
man armies. ''Current Opinion," the well 
and favorably known magazine, calls attention to 
the whole situation in the following words : 

' ' From the beginning of the present war, the 
most harrowing stories of atrocities have been 
current. But a noteworthy number of reports 
have been coming of late from the American 
correspondents discrediting the worst of these 
stories and restoring, in a measure, the world's 
faith in its own humanity. ' ' 

Joseph O'Donnell Bennett of the Associated 
Press, has sent a long and detailed statement to 
the Chicago Tribune of the attempts of himself 
and four American correspondents, to run down 
stories of atrocities. He says : "I marched for 
days with the German columns, often only one 
day behind the fighting, with the houses that 
had been burned still smouldering, the ground 
freshly broken by shells and trampled by horses 
and men, and the memory of the Genuan ad- 
vance vivid in the minds of the inhabitants. I 

[80] 



interviewed at least twenty persons in each of a 
dozen towns, and found only one instance of a 
non-combatant, who had been killed without 
provocation. In this case the evidence did not 
prove that this man had been wantonly mur- 
dered. Neither in Brussels nor its environs 
could we find, on diligent inquiry, a single of- 
fense. Investigation failed to substantiate any 
of the rumors, nor could we find any one in the 
immediate vicinity who credited them. We have 
seen no atrocities, we can get proof of none." 

The New York World published the following 
dispatch from a special correspondent dated 
September 24th: 

''The French, English and Belgians accuse 
the Germans of shocking atrocities, the Germans 
accusing the English, French and Belgians of 
equally shocking acts of barbarism." 

"In the opinion of the impartial observer, 
such as I am endeavoring to be, I feel that eighty 
per cent of these accusations are not true, ten 
per cent fearfully exaggerated, and ten per cent 
true. ' ' 

A round robin to the same effect was signed 
by such men as Irving S. Cobb of the Saturday 
Evening Post, Henry Hansen of the Chicago 
Evening News, Roger Lewis of the Associated 
Press, and John T. McCutcheon of the Chicago 
Tribune. 

The following editorial reflects the thoughts 
of sane people regarding the question of atroci- 
ties but such wise reflections apparently did not 
sink into the consciousness of the Pro-Ally par- 
tisan. The Emporia Gazette has this to say edi- 
torially : 

"Did the civilized world think war anything 
but what it is — a miserable, cowardly carnival 
of blood-lust and worse passions'? Of course 

[81] 



they will shoot nurses, and worse than that ; of 
course they will burn towns and outrage women. 
Of course they will drop bombs, and let their 
devilish passions loose upon every defenseless 
thing. For that is war. The Germans are not 
worse than the rest of us. When we go the limit, 
the limit is bad, and war is the everlasting lust 
of humanity. ' ' 

It was a notorious fact that if the German 
Command sought to punish the civilian popula- 
tion either in Belgium or France, for sniping 
or other depredations, they were immediately 
attacked by the press as being barbarians — 
never making allowance for the necessity for 
such action. It will be admitted that in a life 
and death struggle many things will be done 
that will cause a shudder when rehearsed in a 
peaceful gathering. But what must be said of 
a nation of at least 100,000,000 fighting a pygmy 
of a quarter of a million and resorting to ruth- 
less warfare, as exhibited when Britain fought 
the little Boer Republic? For ruthlessness the 
following war order of Lord Roberts will equal 
anything of which we have authentic knowledge : 

* * When any attempt has been made to destroy 
a railroad line, all the farms and residences 
within a circumference of ten miles must be 
destroyed ; cattle and all provisions taken away 
and residents driven away without food and 
shelter. ' ' 

Modem warfare has discarded poison ar- 
rows; but has substituted instead, poison gas 
and poison propaganda. The most insidious, 
the most deadly and without a question the most 
cowardly method of war-fare is modern propa- 
ganda. Poison gas often brings instant death 
to the professional fighters on the battlefield — 
and ends there; but poison propaganda does 

[82] 



not see the full results of its deadly, venomous 
and wicked work in three generations. Bayo- 
nets and bullets maim and kill human flesh on 
the field of battle; but poison propaganda in- 
flames and pollutes the minds and consciences 
of men, women and children of an entire nation. 

But the war spirit must be intensified, Liberty 
Bonds must be sold, therefore hate must be kin- 
dled, and what more prolific breeder of hate 
could be desired than the rehearsals of atroci- 
ties, the maiming and killing of children, and 
above all — the lustful assaults on women. 

Many lovers of their kind, felt confident that 
should Europe's feuds, jealousies and hatreds 
culminate and burst into a continent-wide storm, 
America, owing to her isolation, and the intelli- 
gence and discernment of her people, could be 
relied upon to balance the scales of justice as 
between the warring factions. They at least 
were expected not to condemn a nation unheard, 
or on evidence submitted by its enemies. To 
the amazement of all those who love justice and 
fair play and who admired national sanity and 
poise, they found a large section of American 
people were being influenced by blood connec- 
tion ; ready to believe the most horrible stories 
told of one fighting group, and refusing to be- 
lieve the other side being capable of acting in 
the struggle differently from what would be 
expected of them at church or in a drawing- 
room. The American people were not without 
examples for their guidance. They knew that 
neither in America nor anywhere else in the 
world were Grernians considered a lustful or 
degenerate people. Then why should the war 
produce more depravity in the German than in 
the Belgian, the Englishman or the Frenchman? 
The records of the Franco-Prussian war do not 

[83] 



show that Germany was accused of either lust 
or unnecessary cruelty ; then why such a change 
in a few years in national character ? We have 
said that Germany had a reputation the world 
over for the high virtues of her people. But 
what of Belgium and France f In the matter of 
atrocities, Belgium in the Congo stands safely 
next to Turkey in Armenia. And how will the 
national morals of France compare with Ger- 
many 's 1 France with her salacious art, her sug- 
gestive literature, her unnamable hidden and 
disgusting vices, and her carnival of race mur- 
der — a revolting crime against both the laws of 
man and God — race murder which depleted her 
of her manhood, which nature had intended for 
her protection in time of need"? 

Unmindful of these and other conditions, mil- 
lions of the American people threw reason and 
discernment to the winds and were content to be 
fed on vile concoctions which were prepared at 
home and abroad by diabolical and skillful 
hands which were rapidly rendering Americans 
an easy victim for the coming sacrifice. 

These unthinking people did not want war, 
but they were stupidly playing into the hands 
of a leader or leaders who did want war — and 
yet were preaching peace. The time had not yet 
arrived for those who talked peace with their 
lips and yet had their hearts set for war to de- 
clare themselves. Never in all history did a 
leader of a people change so suddenly from the 
soft-tongued angel of peace to the War God, 
as did Woodrow Wilson, President of the 
United States. Owing to the American people 
giving credit to him for keeping them out of the 
war, they elected him to another term. No 
sooner had he secured the reigns of power for 
an additional four years, than he tore from his 

[84] 



face the mask of peace, and startled America 
beheld the grinning and cynical visage of the 
God of War. Never were the people of any 
country so skillfully, so deliberately, and in 
such cold blood, delivered into the hands of one 
man, to be used at will and for his own ambi- 
tions, and they became in his hands, by virtue 
of power and circumstances, as helpless as sheep 
before their shearers, when the American peo- 
ple elected Woodrow Wilson their President for 
a second term. When the hour arrived for 
Woodrow Wilson to act, to act no doubt in ac- 
cordance with the plans long matured, the 
American people were as helpless to stay his 
hand as the people of Germany were to stay the 
hand of their Kaiser. Hundreds who yet 
languish in American prisons can testify to 
this fact. The President knew that if the ques- 
tion of peace and war were left to the people, 
that peace would be chosen triumphantly. That 
is why he wore the garments of peace, before 
they elected him. But now that he had full con- 
trol what cared he for the peope ? It cannot be 
said of Woodrow Wilson that he was not ambi- 
tious. No man could reach the head of a great 
university, the governorship of a great state, 
or the presidency of the United States without 
being impelled by ambition. He saw vividly a 
great world drama being enacted — the greatest 
drama of all time — the chief actors of which 
would go down in history, through all the ages 
to come. In view of this, was he going to re- 
main an auditor, or be content to stand in the 
wings where the audience could get an occa- 
sional glimpse of him, or even play the modest 
and unheroic part of peace-maker I 

On the contrary, was he not in a position to 
jump on the stage, seize the villain and cast him 

[85] 



into outer darkness, and then restore the stolen 
jewels to onr lady fair, bring about peace and 
order, and then take a position in the center of 
the stage before the footlights and hear the ac- 
claim of a world audience with all the assurance 
that his name would echo forever down the cor- 
ridors of time ? 

That indeed was a very ambitious dream ; but 
Woodrow "Wilson was not the first man whose 
dreams turned from pleasant and ambitious ex- 
cursions into a horrible nightmare. 

Mr. Wilson knew full well the arbitrary and 
almost despotic power with which he was 
vested; and that for another period of four 
years. He knew Congress and he knew his peo- 
ple. It is true that he realized that the majority 
of the people, although holding strong opinions, 
were not in favor of war ; but he knew that the 
press was with him, the ultra-patriots, and the 
noisy flag-wavers, and the hordes of greed and 
graft (fifteen thousand of whom have since be- 
come millionaires), and he was taught the les- 
son by the European nations that once war is 
declared and the national honor is at stake, and 
the bands begin playing and patriotic hymns 
sung, and the flags are set to the breeze — oppo- 
sition will die away and any protest will be 
smothered in the roar of noisy applause. If 
Congress should balk, he knew what spurs he 
could use on their haunches ; and if unmanage- 
able — how they could be curbed. Never did a 
European despot sit on his throne with more 
confidence in being able to carry out his own 
individual will, in spite of parliaments or peo- 
ples, than Woodrow Wilson in 1916. He car- 
ried into the White House the petty despotism 
of the schoolroom. Long before he even 
dreamed of the presidency he was a sincere be- 

[86] 



liever in one-man authority. He came to the 
conclusion, no doubt, that if, for instance, the 
President knew more than any senator or con- 
gressman, or more than any individual in the 
country, that he should be the logical man and 
the most desirable man to make the laws for the 
people. Then why the necessity of an expensive 
and troublesome Congress or Senate? In this 
he was like the youth who spent his first day as 
assistant in a drug store. In looking over the 
stock he came across a bottle of patent medi- 
cine. The label set forth that the remedy cured 
every disease known to suffering humanity. The 
boy was perplexed. In his dilemma he asked 
the proprietor why it was necessary to keep 
the thousand and one other drugs in stock, when 
he had one medicine that would do the work of 
all. 

Mr. Wilson's opinions as far back as 1898 
were a forecast of that contempt which he has 
since shown for that approach to a representa- 
tive government which we have here in America, 
namely — Congress. Mr. Wilson at that time 
was quite a sincere admirer of Bagehot, the 
English wit and critic. Bagehot remarked : ''A 
good horse likes to feel the rider's bit; and a 
great deliberate assembly likes to feel that it is 
under worthy guidance. A great assembly is as 
soon spoiled by over-indulgence as a little 
child." ''These," remarks Mr. Wilson, *'are 
eminently business-like sentences. ' ' It certainly 
must be flattering to Congress to know that un- 
less under the firm guidance and discipline of 
the President, they will become like spoiled 
children. That certainly is the mind of the 
schoolmaster — and it a far stretch from the 
schoolroom to the White House. 

The partisans of a Republican form of gov- 
[87] 



ernmerit, particularly those who were possessed 
of the conviction that a republic is Heaven-born, 
and any modification of it would be both sacri- 
lege and treason, must have been at least dis- 
turbed, if not distressed, on observing Amer- 
ica's entry into the great war. 

It is not an exaggeration to state that the 
American people had no say, nor were they con- 
sulted in any greater regard in this very serious 
business than the peoples of either Russia or 
Germany. 

The form of government in this country, as 
at present constituted, in many respects is as 
autocratic and as unresponsive to the will of the 
people as was the government of Germany prior 
to 1914 ; the only difference being that the Amer- 
ican people, once in two or four years, have the 
privilege of changing their taskmasters. King 
Democrat or ex-King Republican is after all the 
only choice of the people. 

The independent pretender, usually owing to 
conditions, has very little chance for the Amer- 
ican throne. 

That President Wilson acted upon his own 
judgment, independent of his people, and with- 
out consulting them, in deciding for war, cannot 
be gainsaid. 

The American people, once they had given the 
reins of power to their executive were as help- 
less and impotent to curb their ruler as the 
people of German}^ were impotent against the 
will of their Kaiser. If his judgment were good, 
the people would benefit, and if bad, the people 
would suffer; substantially as in Germany, and 
in Germany exactly as in America. Not one 
of the peoples of Europe, had they been con- 
sulted by referendum, would have declared for 
war — it was a war of the leaders, not of the 

[88] 



peoples. Had the American people been con- 
sulted as in a democracy, they would have given 
even more of an emphatic verdict against war. 
And no one knew that fact better than President 
Wilson. That is the principal reason that he 
waited for a second term of office before declar- 
ing war. 

He knew that the people of Britain did not 
want war, or the people of Germany, or of 
France, but he observed that once their leaders 
had declared for war, and the poisons of hate 
were skillfully let loose, and the War God en- 
throned, that millions instantly stood ready to 
make supreme sacrifices on the cruel and bloody 
altar of pagan patriotism. 

Europe had set up her altars for a blood 
sacrifice, and the high priests of the Entente, 
especially, refused to believe, in order to further 
their own ends, that there was any salvation for 
the peoples, except through the shedding of 
human blood. Their eyes were blind and their 
ears were deaf to compromise, rapprochement 
or reconciliation. 

The high priest of America shared in that be- 
lief, and in support thereof set up an altar for 
an American blood sacrifice. Instead of acting 
the part of the world's greatest mediator, he 
chose to be his country's greatest sacrificer. In- 
stead of using his office and position in the spirit 
of fairness, impartiality, and Christian charity 
and forbearance, he became an uncompromising 
partisan of one group against the other. His 
own conscience, his heart and his brain told him 
that the issues between the warring nations were 
not clean-cut, they were not one-sided, that each 
was guilty. He knew the particular disease 
that was convulsing each and all of them. 

In the face of this he committed, without stint 
[89] 



or limit, and with but nebulous reservations, tbe 
blood and treasure of America ; in common cause 
with despotic and barbarous Russia, revengeful 
' and degenerate France, cruel and pagan Japan, 
and designing and envious Britain. These were 
the noble associates of America. It certainly 
was like a Don Quixote going forth in the com- 
pany of a band of angels to slay the dragon. 

Woodrow Wilson knew intimately the char- 
acter of each of the belligerents. He knew what 
animated them in the past, and he was not blind 
to each of their hidden aims and objects in the 
great war. He had no misgivings as to which 
way Russia was heading ; the prize France was 
after; and Britain's hidden expectations. His 
sense of fairness in the beginning of the struggle 
told him that the interests of the world would 
be best served by '^ peace without victory." 
This exalted, if not inspired declaration, was 
made early in the struggle; when all the main 
facts were fresh and obtainable. It was cer- 
tainly made with a full belief that no belligerent 
was guilty, or all were guilty. There is no ques- 
tion that he deemed them all guilty; and their 
guilt only a question of degree. At any rate, at 
that time, he apparently did not share the belief 
that any fighting group in Europe, at least, was 
wise enough, good enough, and just enough to 
be allowed to completely crush another great 
group and impose their will completely on the 
other. Considering the ambitions of the Ger- 
man ruling class, and their belief that Might 
makes Right which had been proven against 
them, coupled with a full knowledge of the his- 
tory and ideals or lack of ideals of the nations 
of the Entente, he was justified in believing even 
then, that peace by victory was unthinkable and 
would surely sow the seed for another struggle 

[90] 



and would usher in a period of universal hate, 
of which France was but an isolated example. 
He felt, no doubt, like the just judge who lis- 
tened to the case of two neighbors, both of whom 
were in the wrong, unreasoning and unreason- 
able, and who after reviewing the evidence gave 
them both a lecture on manners and conduct, 
and ordered each to pay his own costs. 

These were Mr. Wilson's impulses as he 
viewed the struggle in its early stages. When 
one beholds to-day the terrible results manifest 
on every hand of Peace by Victory — Peace by 
complete physical domination of practically 
half the civilized world over the other half, re- 
sulting in universal anarchy and ruin the wide- 
world over, and as one witnesses the depths of 
degradation into which the world has fallen as 
the result of this ''Victory," we can well imag- 
ine future historians writing into history, 
Woodrow Wilson as the most tragic and colossal 
failure, considering' his opportunities, of all 
time. It will be recorded that he let fall from 
his nerveless grasp the sword with which he 
could have cut the cords that were binding the 
nations of Europe in a hopeless, struggling, and 
of themselves, inextricable mass. The power 
was given him to sever these bands, separate the 
writhing mass, tell each the plain truth about 
himself, lay down the basis for a just settlement, 
and if this were not acceptable to one group and 
acquiesced in by the other, join with the reason- 
able group, or in the event of both refusing these 
good offices, have America cut off communica- 
tions entirely with both groups and leave them 
to their own self-imposed destruction. 

During the course of the war there were many 
psychological opportunities for a whole-hearted, 
fair-minded, and impartial injection of the good 

[91] 



offices of America in the struggle. Instead of 
taking the transcendent question up in a busi- 
nesslike, let alone statesmanlike way, Mr. Wil- 
son raised not even a hand to stop those actions 
of his countrymen which created suspicions of 
America in Germany and gave corresponding 
encouragement to the Entente group. He al- 
lowed his countrymen to wax rich as a result of 
Europe's misfortunes; thereby creating a pre- 
mium for the continuance of the war indefinitely. 
He employed his precious time in blowing mean- 
ingless word bubbles and watching them rise 
and float into thin air, before an admiring audi- 
ence that applauded his acrobatic and nice use 
of words and phrases, which were as meaning- 
less as they were impotent. When he theorized 
he was indefinite : when he was definite he was 
one-sided and brutally partisan. 

Great Britain announced early that she would 
be content with nothing less than a complete 
physical victory over Germany. This was both 
characteristic and probable. With her powerful 
allies, and world resources at her command, she 
was going to see to it, no matter who else might 
suffer, that this long-looked for opportunity of 
crushing her menace and rival would be turned 
to the best possible account. She therefore didi 
not like Wilson's early formula, ''peace with- 
out victory"; but as to this she was soon put 
at ease. She soon discovered that this was but 
a fragile and evanescent dream of the school- 
master — the statesman reverting momentarily 
to a simpler type. 

Britain began to understand the Wilson mind. 
They saw a peculiar combination of schoolmas- 
ter, preacher, politician and stateman. They 
beheld neither an entity nor an non-entity, but 
a peculiar mixture of softness and hardness, 

[92] 



firmness and flexibility. They discovered, for 
instance, that he was so physically and men- 
tally constituted that he would be liable to make 
more noise and fuss in having the tips of his 
toes trampled upon, than in having his leg taken 
off. They came to understand that he had a 
very wide vision, but that his peculiarity lay in , 
the fact that he could see only one object at a 
time ; and when star-gazing, he was liable to be 
thrown on all-fours by a trivial object at his 
feet. 

When President Wilson dropped his formula 
''peace without victory," and substituted 
''make the world safe for democracy," casting 
at the same time a look of disdain at Genmany, 
and one of approval and complacency on those 
heroic defenders of democracy — Eussia, despot 
and barbarian; Japan, the pagan; and France, 
late of the Dreyfus fame — there certainly was in- 
jected into the whole sad war business the first 
act of real comedy — a species of humor that 
even the stolid Englishman could appreciate, 
admire and enjoy. 

In the early months of the struggle there 
were two propositions put forth for ending the 
war — one by America, the greatest of the neu- 
trals, and the other by Great Britain, one of the 
leading participants. 

These propositions were as wide apart as the 
shores of the ocean that lay between the two 
nations presenting them. Mr. Wilson spoke 
truly for America, and registered the best 
thought of mankind when, in expressing his 
opinion, he used the most lofty phrase ever em- 
ployed by a statesman — "peace without vic- 
tory." He did not ask the warring nations to 
compromise their differences. There was noth- 
ing to compromise. There were no principles 

[93] 



involved. The war had started, to all appear- 
ance, by reason of two great nations, each 
coming to the assistance of a neighbor and 
friend. Russia made a move to protect Servia 
— Germany stepped in to protect Austria; 
France and England sided with their partner 
and friend, Russia. It began with a local fight 
between two neighbors and it grew to immense 
proportions; through the attractive force of 
sympathy, if not self-interest. There were no 
principles involved. There were no questions 
agitating these peoples that had to be solved. 
There were no controversies between the na- 
tions. But a day before the struggle began all 
was as peaceful as at any period during the 
preceding twenty-five years. Considering these 
facts, Wilson no doubt felt there was nothing 
to compromise — that the only thing for them to 
do was quit fighting and resume their former 
peaceful relations. No opposition to this 
formula came from Germany; for she, though 
it may have been hypocritical, claimed that she 
was simply protecting an ally and defending 
the fatherland. It remained for Great Britain, 
as head of the Entente, to brush Mr. Wilson's 
proposition aside and announce anew her war 
aims which consisted in the monstrous declara- 
tion that the war would be waged on her part 
until Germany and her allies were crushed; in 
other words, that Britain and her associates 
intended to obtain complete physical victory 
over their opponents. 

Had it been a case of principle, of conscience, 
of humanity, of unselfishness, or disinterested- 
ness and of high ideals, coupled with humility 
and an unblemished past record, as against a 
record of years of proven international crime on 
the part of one now engaged in a repetition of 

[94] 



these crimes, then such war aims as set forth by 
Britain could, in the sight of men, at least be 
justified. But with Germany's guilt for starting 
the war in doubt, even sincerely questioned by 
prominent Britons, as well as neutrals, with 
the further knowledge that to compare the pre- 
vious war crimes of Germany and Britain, if 
we take the record for the past hundred and 
fifty years, would be like comparing the purity 
of a mountain stream with the dirty waters of 
the Ganges, would make Britain's claims and 
aims preposterous. 

A purely physical victory such as this meant 
the exaltation of might ; a decision in strict ac- 
cordance with the brutality of ages, the arbit- 
rament of the caveman. A victory snch as this, 
under the circumstances, was monstrous in its 
conception, brutal in its execution, and accursed 
in its results. 

Here we find Britain setting herself up as 
both plaintiff, judge and executioner. Judge 
between Russia and Germany ; France and Ger- 
many; and herself and Germany; excluding all 
favorable and extenuating testimony for her 
opponent, whitewashing and exalting her as- 
sociates, and binding them by bribes, promises 
and threats, in an agreement, to stick together 
until each obtained what his heart craved, and 
the enemy beaten into the dust. 

In the face of this decision, proclaimed from 
the house-tops, there was nothing left for Ger- 
many to do but abjectly surrender or fight to a 
finish. 

No one knew better what this meant than 
President Wilson. He knew that if such an un- 
compromising and bloody program were carried 
out, it would mean the wreck of Europe; and 
yet he was the man who held the key to the 
whole situation. rgg-. 



In order to carry out this gruesome enter- 
prise, Britain required American food, clotliing, 
and war materials. In addition to this she must 
be allowed to undermine the strength of Ger- 
many by starvation. A failure of either of these 
plans rendered a complete victory impossible. 

Had the hope of a complete physical victory 
been removed from Britain's possibilities, and a 
draw the only probable outcome remaining, 
there is no question but that her leaders would 
have preferred a termination of hostilities, at 
the first psychological opportunity, on the basis 
of peace without advantage to either side. 

If Mr. Wilson had stood by his first impulse 
and insisted, in-so-far as America was con- 
cerned, that peace should come without victory, 
he certainly was in a position to force reason on 
Britain, by cutting off all supplies to the war- 
ring factions. 

It must be admitted that owing to the racial 
complexion of America, Mr. Wilson's position, 
to a marked degree, was difficult. As has been 
stated, the natural sympathy, at least in the 
early stages of the contest, was not strong 
enough to influence five per cent of Americans 
to intervene in behalf of Britain and her allies. 
Had the merits of the controversy between the 
contending parties in Europe, from a stand- 
point of right and justice, been equal or even 
somewhat in favor of Germany, America, if 
compelled to take sides, would nevertheless have 
without question joined the Entente. 

Even though America sympathized- with the 
Entente and profited by the war, it is only fair 
to say that the majority of the people would not 
knowingly do Germany an injustice, or would 
they have the war continue one day longer than 
necessary even though the nation made billions 

[96] 



as a result of it. They desired world peace, 
even at the expense of unheard-of profits. Not- 
withstanding this, Mr. Wilson's position was 
both delicate and difficult. He knew he might 
favor the Entente without creating much oppo- 
sition, aside from the German element, but he 
dare not, even in the remotest way, appear to 
favor Grermany. 

It would be difficult indeed, to imagine what 
conditions could induce America to go into the 
war on the side of Germany, but no imagination 
w^ould be necessary to conceive how easy it 
would be to bring America in on the side of the 
Entente. But America, nevertheless, was as 
yet not beyond the power of discrimination. 
For instance, if Mr. Wilson had made it plain 
to the American people that peace without vic- 
tory was the one thing desirable, that the war 
should end with no advantage to either bellig- 
erent, excepting indemnity to Belgium ; that he 
conceived that each side was more or less to 
blame; that Britain's slogan ''Peace by Vic- 
tory" would mean Europe's ruin (as it has) ; 
that Germany stood ready to disarm on fair 
terms, and in order to bring this about, and in 
order to bring Britain to her senses, it would be 
necessary to cut off the supplies of food, cloth- 
ing and war material from the Entente, Amer- 
ica would have, with the exception of the war 
profiteers and yellow newspapers, willingly and 
cheerfully acquiesced. This was the key Mr. 
Wilson held to the war situation. It would 
have unlocked, without forcing, ihe door to 
peace. One month of such treatment as this 
would have brought haughty Britain both to 
her knees and to her senses. 

There were several periods, during the course 
of the struggle, even within a few months of its 

[97] 



inception, that the lock stood ready for the key. 
Key in hand, Mr. Wilson stood hesitating, while 
millions of mortals were being driven, like 
helpless cattle, to the slaughter. 

Starvation is ruthless warfare, even when 
confined to a belligerent garrison, but who can 
measure the atrocious villainy of an attempt, 
in order to win physical supremacy, of the 
starving of the men, women and children of an 
entire nation? 

Can any mortal even calculate the thousands 
upon thousands of infants who went to their 
graves more cruelly, and with more certainty, 
than if they had been within the range of the 
infernal British guns, than those countless in- 
nocent children of Germany? 

There never was a cause so just, since men 
came on the earth, that required such fiendish 
means to establish it, as the wholesale starving 
of innocent women and children, of a village, 
much less an entire nation. 

Upon looking behind the scenes in Germany 
to-day and observing the horrible results of the 
gradual starvation of one entire nation by an- 
other — the thousands of starving infants vainly 
striving to extract sustenance from the emaci- 
ated and impoverished breasts of mothers — 
mothers who were refusing food that they 
sorely needed in order that seed might be sown 
for another harvest — old men dropping by the 
wayside, ending life so that their offsprings 
might live, dying as surely by this act of war 
of the enemy, as soldiers in battle, and then 
profane if you will, the name of Christ by call- 
ing this Christian warfare, or the nation Chris- 
tian that is so incarnate a fiend as to employ it. 
It is in deed and truth the crowning infamy of 

[98] 



war, a nation turning savage, multiplying the 
Black Hole of Calcutta ten thousand times. 

This was the method of warfare that Britain 
had to employ, if she hoped, even by years of 
effort, to obtain peace by victory. 

But never in the history of mankind was ret- 
ribution so swift, so appalling, and so deserved 
as that which found expression in the submarine, 
by which Germany, through what might almost 
appear a gift of Providence, was placed in a 
position, barring outside interference, to break 
asunder the ever-tightening chains that were 
slowly, but surely, crushing out the lives of non- 
combatant men, women and children of Ger- 
many. Britain's was a crime against humanity ; 
cruel, merciless and monstrous; and Germany's 
answer, terrible though it was, must be justified 
in that, "necessity knows no law." 

When Great Britain first adopted the star- 
vation method for humbling her enemy, America, 
although profiting from the war and sympa- 
thizing generally with Britain, was compelled, 
both as a matter of business and of conscience, 
to protest against Britain's inhumanity. It will 
be of interest now to examine a fragment of the 
protest that was made against that inhuman 
method of warfare. 

The Literary Digest, March 13th, 1915 : 

''Continued protest against invasion of our 
rights by any of the belligerents and continued 
effort to bring about an understanding between 
England and Germany, which will mitigate the 
sufferings of neutral commerce, are urged by 
many American editors in the situation pro- 
duced by the starvation decree issued by the 
two chief belligerents in Europe. In official 
circles in Washington, there is a feeling as re- 
flected by the correspondents, that "it will be 

[99] 



impossible to induce Great Britain to make any 
material changes in her plans she has announced 
in starving Germany." '' Germany's doom is 
sealed ; we will starve her out, ' ' says the French 
Minister of Marine. 

The New York World: 

''A blockade is a very definite thing, but to 
notify the world in general terms that com- 
merce with Germany is forbidden, without de- 
claring a blockade and accepting its responsi- 
bilities, amounts to a declaration that neutrals 
as well as belligerents are involved in war. If 
German submarine warfare is piracy, this law- 
less British warfare also is piracy." 

The New York Evening Post : 

''Such a frank repudiation of international 
law and of a treaty will go far to rob England 
of the moral superiority which she appears to 
have had at the beginning of the war. ' ' 

The New York Globe : 

''If neutral countries do not lay embargoes 
on their commerce with Germany, as the Allies 
prescribe, then the Allies are to enforce what 
appears to be a blockade against these neutral 
countries." 

The Washington Post : 

"The effect of the new law will be to drive 
off the ocean all commerce except commerce 
with the Allies. Our duty is to make such a de- 
termined protest to England as shall be heeded. 
This protest shall take the form of an ultima- 
tum, or it may actually result in war. But even 
that is preferable to being dragged into war on 
account of our cowardly failure to enforce our 
neutrality. ' ' 

The Post, later on, asks : "Would the German 
Government take pains to feed the prisoners of 
war, first, while Germans themselves were 

[100] 



starving?" And adds : ''In a short time it will 
become apparent that Great Britain has made a 
gigantic blunder by thus antagonizing the 
peaceful nations of the world. Her plan is un- 
workable for two reasons; first, the Allies will 
not permit their soldiers in Germany to be 
starved, which would be necessary and inevita- 
ble if Britain's blockade should be effective ; and 
secondly, the neutral nations of the world will 
not permit their commerce to be destroyed. 
They will go to war against Great Britain, if 
nothing short of war will break her grip on the 
ocean. ' ' 

The Literary Digest in taking note of public 
opinion in the United States, on March 20th, 
1915, says : ' ' Indignant denunciation is pouring 
in on Britain's long-range blockade of Ger- 
many. Editorial observers call it an indefensi- 
ble misuse of sea power, international bullying, 
and a new form of piracy. ' ' 

Boston Globe: 

' * England imposes her decree by no right, ex- 
cept the right of might." 

Pittsburgh Leader : 

''The right sort of reprisal would be to stop 
shipments of all kinds from the United States, 
which would put an end to the war in a way that 
perhaps some folk in Europe have not figured 
on." 

New York Morning Telegraph : 

"Count Bemstorf has a right to ask United 
States to obey the spirit of neutrality and cease 
selling powder and balls and cannon to Great 
Britain while it would not send food to Ger- 
many. Does any man of sense need to be told 
that Bernstorf, when he filed his note of pro- 
test, did not act within his rights. On the face 
of it, though claiming to be neutral, we are 

[101] 



favoring the Allies, as Count Bernstorf as- 
serts," 

The sentiment, as reflected in the above edi- 
torials, although pointing the way in which 
their President might proceed, shows clearly 
that America was more bent on her own material 
interests being conserved than the protection 
of innocent women and children of Germany 
against the inevitable results of barbaric piracy. 
In America's indignant protests against the 
lawlessness of Britain, in this instance, we can- 
not find any more evidence or traces in the dic- 
tates of humanity, aside from self-interest, than 
when subsequently she resorted to war, as the 
result of the destruction of her commerce by 
German submarines. 

Had America been strictly neutral, in thought 
as well as in act, she would have seen unmistak- 
ably, that German lawless submarine warfare 
came as a direct result of British lawless mis- 
use of sea power — lawlessness employed in or- 
der to overcome a form of lawlessness which 
had for its object the destruction of millions of 
innocent non-combatants; and not committed 
for the purpose of affronting the American 
people. 

To the protests of America, Britain turned a 
deaf ear. She announced emphatically, that her 
piracy would go on. America, therefore, was 
placed in a position where she had to go to war 
to maintain her neutral rights — or accept the 
conditions as laid down by England, as a lesser 
of two evils. Going to war to protect her com- 
merce at that particular time would have been 
unthinkable; unless she added to self-interest 
the higher one of humanity — the protection of a 
nation against starvation. In either case, war 
was not either her remedy or her weapon. For- 

[102] 



tunately, she had within her reach the means 
by which Britain could be brought to reason 
more quickly than by the use of armies or 
navies — she could cut off temporarily, food, 
clothing and war materials. But Mr. Wilson 
did neither one nor the other. He saw in Brit- 
ain's sea methods, autocracy in its most irri- 
tating and objectionable form — cold, merciless, 
destructive and uncompromising. Its power 
for evil, for self-aggrandizement, for one-sided 
punishment, was more than duplicating the 
power of the worst despot on any throne of 
Europe. Yet he could not see that this was a form 
of autocracy that had to be crushed in order to 
make the world safe for democracy. As yet the 
beautiful dream of making the world safe for 
democracy had not flitted through the Presi- 
dent's brain. That ''inspired" conception took 
possession of the soul of Woodrow Wilson upon 
the refusal of Germany to stay the submarine 
warfare, which warfare was jeopardizing Amer- 
ican commerce, commerce which was employed 
exclusively by Britain in Grerman destruction. 

How a war, that was threatened, and after- 
wards declared, for the purpose of protecting 
profits and commerce, and could have been 
avoided if these profits and commerce had been 
left intact, could be turned into a holy war for 
principle and humanity, is beyond all human 
understanding and will remain for all time one 
of the absurdities of history. 

America's grievance against Germany was 
set forth in plain and specific terms. She was 
accused of destroying American shipping. If 
the two countries were to remain friends, this 
must be discontinued. If discontinued, Amer- 
ica and Germany would continue in their his- 
toric friendship; if persisted in, war would re- 
sult. A purely business proposition. 

[103] 



No *' sacred" principles were even hinted at, 
much less anticipated. In plain English, the 
proposition was, ''continue to sink our ships 
and we will be at war, refrain and America and 
Germany will remain at peace. ' ' 

Long after the invasion of Belgium and the 
thousands of atrocities credited to Germany, we 
find Mr. Wilson making the following declara- 
tion (December 8th, 1914) : "This is a war with 
which we have nothing to do, whose causes can- 
not reach us, whose very existence affords us 
opportunities of friendship and disinterested 
service which should make us ashamed of any 
thought of hostility." 

The pertinent question, then, naturally arises, 
why should America have genuine hostility 
against Germany in 1916, for the invasion of 
Belgium and the atrocities that were re- 
ported when Belgium and France were first 
occupied, when on December 8th, 1914, with a 
full knowledge of the invasion of Belgium, 
coupled with rightful information regarding 
atrocities, he tells his people that they should 
be ashamed to have any thought of hostility? 

Again, on December 7th, 1915, seven months 
after the "Lusitania" had been sunk, he tells 
Congress that, "we have stood apart, studiously 
neutral. It was our manifest duty to do so." 

Again, on September 2nd, 1916, after observ- 
ing Europe's conflagration for two long years, 
Mr. Wilson, in accepting the Democratic nom- 
ination, re-affirmed his previous declarations 
and gave assurance to the American people, 
that if elected for a second term to the Presi- 
dency, he would in the interests of the American 
people, and the interests of humanity, continue 
to lead his people in the paths of peace and neu- 
trality. He gave them assurance, with as com- 

[104] 



plete knowledge as was possible for any man 
to possess as to who was guilty for bringing on 
the war, with a knowledge of the particular 
selfish interests that each party had in the strug- 
gle, with a knowledge of Britain's inhuman pro- 
gram of the starving of an entire nation and 
with an appreciation of Germany's terrible 
method of warding off the impending calamity 
which this starvation method had in store for 
her. 

These peaceful utterances on the part of the 
President were received with both confidence 
and approval by the people of the country ; and 
as a result of this confidence and approval, and 
in obedience to the slogan, "he kept us out of 
the war," Mr. Wilson owes his election for a 
second term. 

American history fully bears out the conten- 
tion that some of her presidents have shown 
traits and characteristics during their second 
and last term of office which were not in evi- 
dence during their first term. Having no fear 
of the disapproval of the electorate, an inde- 
pendence of action is noted — often bordering on 
kingly autocracy. At the fag end of his first 
term of office, and particularly preceding the 
election of 1916, Mr. Wilson was the soft- 
tongued neutral ; but no sooner was he installed 
in office for the second term, than he gave the 
world to understand that Mr. Wilson's ideas 
and ideals were to prevail — not those of the 
American people. 

Mr. Wilson, almost over-night, assumed a de- 
cidedly belligerent, partisan, and uncompro- 
mising attitude. As yet he was not inspired by 
the necessity of fighting to make the world 
safe for democracy. That came later, during 
the flood-tide of the Wilsonian platitudinous 

[105] 



exuberance which well nigh engulfed the world 
in a tidal wave of words. What he really en- 
tered the war for was to make safe the Atlantic 
for American ammunition ships which were des- 
tined for British ports, but ultimately for the 
body of the German soldier, and also to make 
safe British passenger vessels which carried the 
American flag at their masts and in their holds, 
shot and shell which would ultimately blow the 
German defenders into eternity. 

''Sink our vessels and there will be war, re- 
frain from so doing and we will be friends." 
That was the height and full measure of Wil- 
son's war aims on April 18th, 1916, nearly two 
3^ears after the European war broke out and 
Belgium was over-run, one year after the Lusi- 
tania was sunk, and with nearly two years of 
full knowledge of both Germany's aims and 
objects, and her war record. 

The fires for humanity had not yet been 
kindled in Wilson's heart — as yet we detect 
nothing but sordid, commonplace self-interest. 

In what was practically an ultimatum to Ger- 
many, Mr. Wilson in 1916 says: ''Unless the 
imperial German government shall now imme- 
diately declare and effect an abandonment of its 
present methods of submarine warfare against 
passenger and freight carrying vessels, the gov- 
ernment of the United States can have no choice 
but to sever diplomatic relations with the Ger- 
man Empire altogether." 

Had Germany acquiesced in Mr. Wilson's 
ultimatum, America would probably not be 
wearing the halo of glory she is to-day, in having 
fought and won the war to make the world safe 
for democracy; which brought peace to the 
world — a peace which is now beyond all under- 
standing 1 

[106] 



Not only did Woodrow Wilson cause America 
to enter the war for purely local and selfish 
reasons; and in doing so, Mr. Wilson wilfully 
and grossly misrepresented the German govern- 
ment. On February 3rd, 1917, Mr, Wilson an- 
nounced to Congress the breaking off of diplo- 
matic relations, in the following language: ''I 
think you will agree with me, that in view of 
this declaration, which suddenly and without 
prior instruction of any kind deliberately with- 
draws the solemn assurance given by the Im- 
perial Grovernment 's note of the 4th of May, 
1916, this government has no alternative con- 
sistent with the dignity and honor of the United 
States, but to take the course which, in its note 
of the 18th of April, 1916, it announced that it 
would take in event that the German govern- 
ment did not declare and effect an abandon- 
ment of the methods of submarine warfare 
which it was then employing and to which it 
now purposes again to resort." 

In this Mr. Wilson flatly accuses Germany of 
deliberately breaking a solemn assurance given 
to this country regarding future submarine war- 
fare. Germany gave no such solemn assur- 
ance. She made it plain that her permanent 
withdrawal was contingent. Germany express- 
ly stated that, as evidence of good faith, she 
would discontinue certain submarine practices, 
provided Britain would refrain from her acts 
of piracy. She asked America in the meantime 
to use her influence through either friendship or 
pressure to have Great Britain discontinue her 
particular piratical warfare, a warfare at which 
the submarine methods were directed. After 
keeping her word, which was contingent, and 
waiting several months, Germany announced 
that she would meet piracy with piracy — she 

[107] 



would figlit the devil with fire — she would sink 
all commerce destined for her enemy, no matter 
from what source it came. 

The remarkable outcome of this controversy 
was now culminating, and consisted in the fact 
that although Britain inaugurated piracy on 
American commerce, which meant the sinking of 
American ships if British sea orders were not 
obeyed and which only received a reprimand 
from America, we find now that America is will- 
ing to make war on Germany for interfering 
with American commerce although Germany is 
not doing this by reason of any animosity for 
America but in order to save herself from de- 
struction from the result of Britain's illegal 
warfare. Had America been fair and firm in 
the beginning in her treatment of British viola- 
tion of international law, the world in all prob- 
ability would have been saved the horrors of 
submarine warfare as employed against mer- 
chant vessels and America would not have been 
called upon to expend either her blood or treas- 
ure. There is no question that it was Wilson's 
indecision and partiality, in the early stages of 
the war, that prolonged the struggle, put com- 
promise out of the question, and brought Amer- 
ica into the war. 

There is no question that there were many 
periods during the course of the war when Ger- 
many would have been willing to end the strug- 
gle, without loss or gain of territory, or without 
giving or receiving indemnity. 

The same thing may be said of Great Britain 
when the hopelessness of the struggle and its 
appalling costs were appreciated; provided a 
strong outside force were injected, which would 
excuse her in the eyes of her associates and at 
the same time save her pride. 

[108] 



It is also true, needless to say, that if either 
belligerent were winning, it would not listen 
to outside suggestion or dictation. 

Necessity is the mother of invention, as it is 
also a law unto itself. After repeated warnings 
to Great Britain and appeals to the United 
States, Germany decided to use the submarine, 
which must rightly be termed David's sling 
against an arrogant Goliath. 

A few days of this warfare changed, as if by 
magic, the whole military situation and it be- 
came evident to even a novice, that the old, 
world-champion, the hero of a thousand fair and 
unfair fights, was becoming groggy and sinking 
under the terrible blows delivered beneath the 
belt which he was receiving in return for the 
foul blows that he had delivered from the very 
beginning of the fight. It became evident to 
his relatives and friends and business associ- 
ates, that something must be done, and done 
quickly, to save the old warrior from a knock- 
out. 

America as a whole, in some respects, would 
not waste any sentiment in this regard even if 
they saw Britain prostrate in the ring, but they 
feared the prospective champion. America, in 
this, was very much in the same frame of mind 
as is reported of a New York politician who had 
deserted the Democratic party on the free silver 
issue and joined the Republicans. Later he re- 
turned to the Democratic fold. On being ac- 
cused of insincerity and on being asked for an 
explanation of his conduct, replied that, '4ie 
would rather trust the boss he knew than the 
boss he did not know." 

If America was going to have a sea-power boss, 
she would rather trust the boss who had become 
benevolent in the long use of autocracy than 

[109] 



one wiiom she mistrusted as being a rising aspi- 
rant to world rule, and whose graciousness she 
doubted. 

When Great Britain announced that she in- 
tended to have the contest decided by purely 
physical means, and in pursuance of that pur- 
pose elected to use foul means for its accom- 
plishment, she was, considering the resourceful- 
ness, disposition, and desperation of her oppo- 
nent, treading on dangerous ground. In mak- 
ing her decision, she stupidly and persistently 
undervalued the submarine. 

If this *'no compromise" slogan of Britain's 
did not stir President Wilson to action, it cer- 
tainly must have caused him some uneasiness, 
even in the early stages of the struggle. He 
surely must have entertained the possibilities of 
defeat for Britain. Justly or unjustly, the 
American people would not allow Britain's sub- 
jugation at the hands of the Germans. Mani- 
festly not. Even though Great Britain richly 
deserved punishment — even defeat — there is no 
question but Mr. Wilson would use his high 
office to save her from that humiliation. There- 
fore, Mr. Wilson must have entertained even 
from the opening of hostilities, the possibility 
that America would have to enter the struggle 
to save Britain from destruction. If that was 
true, it is evident that America had an implied, 
if not a legal or moral obligation to see that 
Britain was not overcome. And Britain's reck- 
less purpose of making this a "finish fight" 
with all the possible evil consequences for her, 
was she not assuming this attitude of bravado 
largely for the reason that she knew, or at least 
felt confident, that did defeat at any time stare 
her in the face, America would step in to avert 
the impending calamity? True, America had 

[110] 



not signed a bond to save Britain; but, never- 
theless, there existed an implied bond, stronger 
than the written bond, the bond of blood, of lan- 
guage, and of mutual interests. 

Considering these outstanding facts and con- 
ditions and the danger and responsibility for 
America that lurked in Britain's reckless and 
extravagant war aims, was it not Mr. Wilson's 
manifest duty, as well as his right, to bring in- 
telligent pressure on Britain, to the end that she 
modify her method of warfare as well as her 
war aims? 

In the event that Great Britain refused rea- 
sonable advice, it was Mr. Wilson's duty im- 
mediately to take up the question with Ger- 
many, looking to making an honorable peace 
settlement ; a settlement conceived in a spirit of 
justice and proffered to all belligerents with 
scrupulous regard for impartiality. 

Considering all the known facts relating to the 
causes which produced the war, keeping in 
mind that each came into court with hands 
more or less unclean, each clearly having ob- 
jects of a selfish nature in view, the only possi- 
ble peace terms that could be consistently urged 
by Mr. Wilson, would be on the basis of no in- 
demnity, no territory, or no advantage to any 
belligerent, with the exception that Germany 
compensate Belgium for invasion, etc. 

Viewing the whole question at that time with 
a view to justice and expediency, or looking 
back at the present time with a full knowledge 
of all the happenings and events, a peace on that 
basis would, in time, have met the approval of 
mankind. 

Had Germany refused such a peace program 
as that, it would have been evident to Mr. Wil- 
son that she was out for conquest and not for 

[111] 



defense, and he could, with a clear conscience, if 
he chose, throw support to the ''boss he knew 
rather than the boss he did not know. ' ' 

On the other hand, had Germany agreed to 
these terms and Britain refused, Mr. Wilson 
could have, and should have, in order to bring 
Britain to fairness and sanity, cut off all sup- 
plies from her. In this he would have had the 
approval and support of a majority of his coun- 
trymen, of neutral nations generally, as well as 
a majority of the peoples who made up the bel- 
ligerent nations. 

Instead of taking action and employing the 
power and prestige at his disposal, he frittered 
away precious months in "watchful waiting" — 
a catchy and euphonious phrase for the absence 
of plan or lack of initiative. 

Mr. Wilson drifted on this course until Ger- 
many, through necessity, perfected a weapon so 
terrible in its nature for destruction, so far- 
reaching in its possibilities, that it not only 
answered piracy by piracy, but if allowed to 
continue, meant Britain's do^vnfall and the tri- 
umph of Germany — Avith all that might mean 
for America and the world. 

With this new weapon in her hand and victory 
now a probability, with hatred for her enemies 
and contempt for America, is it to be wondered 
that Germany now withdrew all peace overtures 
which she had proffered from time to time ? 

America's opportunity for bringing about 
peace had passed; and now, in order to save 
Britain from defeat, she had to fight. America's 
decision had brought her into a frightful di- 
lemma. She was compelled, if she entered at 
all, to be entwined in the coils and meshes of 
the Entente. Their individual war aims Amer- 
ica could not repudiate, lest one of them should 

[112] 



drop out; those principles that she considered 
just and fair, she could not announce without 
offending her new associates and weakening 
their fighting spirit: and in order to meet the 
dilemma, Mr. Wilson resorted to high sounding, 
and at times meaningless, phrase making, senti- 
ments which could be interpreted in as many 
different ways as humanity possessed different 
brain idiosyncrasies. To the Englishman he 
was a brother, to the Frenchman a friend and 
to the Russian and Jap he was a comrade in the 
sacred cause of democracy against autocracy, to 
the German people he posed as their would-be 
deliverer and to the German rulers he was the 
wrath of God. 

The truth is, he entered the war to save Amer- 
ican shipping from destruction and to save 
America's chief debtor from defeat. 

Now that America was in the war, ''Democ- 
racy" was to be the slogan and Wilson its 
prophet. To each of Mr. Wilson's lofty dec- 
larations and pronouncements his new Euro- 
pean and Asiatic associates reverently bowed 
and said "Amen — ^we agree with every word of 
that, whatever it means." Unfortunately for 
Mr. Wilson, innocent and guileless prophet, in- 
experienced and callow diplomat, unfortunately 
for him indeed, that the Entente were not at 
the time required to put in black and white 
their conception of what they really did under- 
stand as to the meaning and purport of Mr. Wil- 
son's declarations. Indeed, it was not until 
Germany was defeated, and until he met his vic- 
torious friends in Paris, that he discovered to 
his horror that his "14 Points" were only con- 
sidered by the experienced and resourceful 
statesmen of England, France, Italy and Japan, 
as being juvenile first exercises in diplomacy; 

[113] 



and democracy, as they understood it, consisted 
in appropriating everything of value in sight, in 
accordance with traditions and practices of the 
honorable statesmen with whom Mr. Wilson 
had, so fortunately for democracy, America and 
the world, cast his lot. 

As a result of this ' ' peace ' ' meeting Mr. Wil- 
son returned to America, like Moses from the 
Fair, with a case of green spectacles, in the 
form of a peace treaty, an instrument which 
would do credit and honor to Bismarck, Na- 
poleon the First, Alexander or Caesar. 

Thus to their long list of crimes the Allies 
added the heartless one of taking advantage of 
pastoral innocence, pedagogic statesmanship 
and democratic simplicity, venturing abroad in 
obedience to the dictates of vanity and the in- 
cipient dreams of ambition. 

All thinking men know that there was a time 
during the progress of the war when Woodrow 
Wilson could have dictated to his associates the 
terms for a just and lasting peace ; there was a 
time when we could have had the freedom of 
the seas, gradual disarmament, made provision 
for a right disposition of the German colonies, 
reconciled Italy and secured relief for all time 
from the Japanese menace. The time for dic- 
tating that peace to our associates was when 
they were depending on America's aid to save 
them from defeat — the time was not when Ger- 
many lay prostrate at the feet of her enemies 
and when the Allies cared not the snap of their 
fingers for further American aid. 

Surely Mr. Wilson realized in his heart of 
hearts as he sat at the Paris Council Table and 
as he witnessed the independence and greed on 
every hand that there was a vast difference in 
dealing with men fighting wdth their ''backs to 

[114] 



the wall" and the same group of men when they 
had become exulting victors. 

The service that these world leaders per- 
formed for mankind and the peace which they 
evoked, I will attempt to set forth and describe 
in another chapter. 



[115] 



CHAPTER VI 

A Further Consideration of Inconsistency, 
Insincerity and Gtuilt 

It is no idle prediction that history will ap- 
portion a large share of the guilt of bringing 
on the World War to Great Britain, France and 
Russia; and in addition to this, the almost 
equally dastardly crime of prolonging the war 
beyond reasonable bounds will be credited to 
Great Britain, France and America. 

While it is true America will be held guiltless 
of contributing in any way to initial war causes, 
yet there are two outstanding facts that the most 
superficial observer is compelled to note: — 
(1) That although America did not win the war, 
yet the Allies could not have won without Amer- 
ican aid. (2) Had America remained neutral, 
in thought as well as in deed, and had not 
favored the Allies and given them undue encour- 
agement from the beginning, there is no ques- 
tion that a compromise peace would have re- 
sulted — and that at no distant time from the 
outbreak of the war. 

Nio matter what the ambitious military leader- 
ship of the Central Powers or the Entente held 
at the beginning of the War, it is safe to pre- 
sume or even assert that within ninety days of 
its inception there was not a general of repute 
on either side who saw anything ahead but a 
long-drawn out struggle. It simply resolved 
itself into a question of resources. The astute 
military leaders of Germany undoubtedly real- 
ized that if with their fighting machine as per- 
fect and as powerful as they ever could hope 

[116] 



to have it, and that complete success did not 
result within a reasonable length of time, they 
certainly could not hope to have success either 
in the immediate or distant future. 

Each side, therefore, was compelled to meas- 
ure resources. Germany's resources were well 
defined, circumscribed, and to all appearance 
ample only for defense. Whether for the rea- 
son that she had given up hope of victory, or 
for reasons of a sincere desire for peace, Ger- 
many early in the struggle made overtures for 
bringing the conflict to a close. These offers 
were branded insincere, particularly by Great 
Britain ; principally for the reason that a com- 
promise peace — a peace which should leave 
Germany no weaker and Britain no stronger — 
did not suit the British leaders. But whether 
these peace proffers by Germany were sincere 
or were not, may be a debatable question ; but 
the fact remains, and that fact will be to the 
eternal credit of Germany, that she did offer 
repeatedly to meet her opponents face to face 
for the purpose of settling their differences ; and 
the Entente Allies, to their reproach, made no 
offer to end the war on any basis but that of 
victory. 

But what were the factors which compelled 
Great Britain to cast aside the peace proffers 
of Gennany and which induced her to continue 
the fight until a complete physical victory had 
been attained? Was she not building largely 
on American support — that support which was 
outwardly given, and that even greater support 
which was secretly promised? In this will not 
American leadership be held guilty of a crime 
against humanity — almost as great as the crime 
of starting the war, namely, the heartless crime 
of contributing to the continuation of the strug- 

[117] 



gle, months, if not years, beyond when the con- 
flict should have ended naturally? 

How this great, peaceful American giant was 
brought into the conflict, unwillingly — blinded 
and led by pygmies and parasites- — robbed and 
bled, will be a subject that will not be exhausted 
by writers and investigators for generations to 
come. No subject in all history will surpass 
this in human interest — it will remain one of 
the outstanding absurdities of history — an 
enigma and a paradox. 

Long before the Lusitania was sunk, or before 
the submarine became a factor in the war — 
American diplomatic and financial interests 
were at work to swing this country into the 
war on the side of the Entente Allies. There 
were two important moves to that end — one 
staged in Paris and the other in Washington. 

In the fall of 1914 when the great German 
fighting machine became ''stalled" midway be- 
tween the French frontier and Paris, the Ger- 
man leaders made direct proposals for peace to 
France. They knew that France realized more 
than any of her associates that she would be the 
one that would be "bled white," win or lose. 
Her soil would be the battle ground, while Rus- 
sia and Great Britain would remain practically 
free from invasion. There is no question that 
Germany did not expect France to desert her 
associates and make a humiliating, dishonora- 
ble and separate peace; but she certainly did 
expect that France would bring pressure of a 
legitimate kind on her allies to make them see 
what it meant for France and the world to en- 
deavor to crush the German fighting machine — 
a taste of its formidable character they had 
already experienced. Diplomatic America be- 
came aware of this move, no doubt through in- 

[118] 



formation supplied by Great Britain, and 
instead of taking advantage of this psychologi- 
cal situation to end the carnage in Europe, they 
made inducements to France to continue the 
struggle, pledging America's aid — not only 
money, but men as well. 

So, late in the fall of 1914 we find Myron T. 
Herrick, who had been appointed Ambassador 
to France by President Taft, William G. Sharp, 
who had been appointed by Wilson to take Her- 
rick 's place as Ambassador, and Robert Bacon, 
representing the Morgan interests, closeted 
with the high officials of France ; and it was at 
this meeting that France was induced to reject 
Germany's proposal for a peace conference, and 
when the promise was given, if France would 
fight on, that America would be brought into the 
struggle. We have this information on no less 
authority than Gabriel Honotaux, a former Min- 
ister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic 
and a man high in the councils of France. 

How America was ''blackjacked" into the 
war by these men and Wilson will never be 
adequately told, but enough is known and com- 
ing to the surface daily to form a chapter in 
American history which will bring the blush of 
shame to those who are possessed of either 
national pride or a sense of right and justice. 

In a very general way, in a former chapter, I 
alluded to those dark forces which were put in 
operation to force America into the war. In 
this chapter I will use more detail in outlining 
this remarkable procedure. 

Shortly after the secret meeting in Paris 
which we have just alluded to, there was held in 
the City of Washington, as a direct result of 
the Paris meeting, a gathering of men whose 
object was to control public opinion in this 

[119] 



country by the direct and indirect purchase of 
the press, and through this to intimidate public 
men, as well as private citizens; and to make 
it appear, through the barometer of the press, 
that the sentiment of America was rapidly 
shaping itself to enter the war on the side of 
the Entente Allies. 

There attended at this secret meeting in 
Washington within a few months after the war 
began a number of financial magnates, diplo- 
mats, representatives of foreign nations, and 
large newspaper proprietors. These men real- 
ized that not five per cent of the American 
people had any taste in taking part in Europe's 
sordid commercial war; but it was firmly held 
by such publicity experts as were in attendance 
that the sum of forty millions of dollars would 
be suificient to purchase the press, obscure the 
issue, silence adverse criticism, scatter lies 
broadcast, and turn the peace-loving American 
people into bloodthirsty fanatics. As to some 
of the details of how the will of this meeting was 
carried out, the reader may consult the Con- 
gressional Eecord of February 9th, 1917 — infor- 
mation that the subsidized press never gave to 
their readers. 

Surely no one will question that in the fall of 
1914 there was little war sentiment in the 
United States — particularly at the time these 
men, who at the Paris meeting pledged Ameri- 
can blood and treasure to France, Roosevelt, 
for instance, had not yet seen the '' enormity" 
of the Belgian invasion, for we find him, long 
after the invasion, holding the opinion that 
''what had been done in Belgium had been done 
in accordance with M^hat Germany unquestion- 
ably sincerely believed to be the course of con- 
duct necessitated by Germany's struggle for 

lifp " 

^"®' [120] 



But a decided newspaper ''sentiment" was 
rapidly taking form as the agents of the AVash- 
ington meeting, to which I have referred, got 
down to definite and substantial action. Roose- 
velt, the astute politician, was, I think, de- 
ceived by this showing of war sentiment as ex- 
pressed in the press. No doubt he was not 
aware of what means had been taken to create 
this sentiment — mistaking the artificial for the 
real. As usual, he had his ear to the ground. 
The tremors that came to his sensitive and edu- 
cated ear were not from popular cries for war, 
but from the ravings and rantings of the paid 
and subsidized press. 

To all appearance Wilson was neglecting to 
take advantage of this war sentiment. But he 
of all others was in a position to know the arti- 
ficial nature of this sentiment — and he contented 
himself to bide his time until sufficient of the 
real article were produced — and the time oppor- 
tune to show his true colors — to turn from 
neutral grey to fiery red. 

For once in Mr. Roosevelt's career that as- 
tute gentleman failed to see beneath the surface 
— he failed to see the inner workings of the 
' ' game. ' ' Assuming that Wilson was not taking 
advantage of favorable political tradewinds, 
Roosevelt concluded to spread his own droop- 
ing political sails, hoping thereby to regain some 
of his lost popularity — if not his former posi- 
tion. He frantically and repeatedly struck 
what he perceived to be the popular war chord 
— but it did not respond to either his gentle 
touch, or the swing of the big stick. 

The fact is there was no sentiment to respond. 
Every test that was made pointed to the fact 
that there was no real war sentiment anywhere 
in the country. Mr. Bacon endeavored to win 

[121] 



the nomination for the United States Senate in 
the State of New York on what was practically 
a pro-war program — but met with disastrous 
defeat. Even much later than this, in 1916, a 
poll was taken in the House of Representatives 
on the question '*Do you favor war with Ger- 
many ? ' ' and only three representatives voted in 
favor of war. Even after America entered the 
war many anti-war adherents questioned Mayor 
Mitchel's activity in war affairs, and as a re- 
sult the New York mayoralty campaign devel- 
oped into but one issue — war and anti-war. 
Mr. Roosevelt told the electors of New York 
and the world that a vote for Mitchel was a vote 
to endorse the war ; and a vote for his opponent 
meant a vote opposing the war. Mitchel was 
buried under an avalanche of votes — in every 
section of the great city. Early in 1916 a reso- 
lution was submitted to the United States Sen- 
ate and voted down by five to one — ''That the 
sinking by a German submarine without notice 
or warning of an armed vessel of her public 
enemy, resulting in the death of a citizen of the 
United States, would constitute a just cause for 
war between the United States and the German 
Empire. ' ' 

Neither did the young manhood of the coun- 
try show any burning zeal to enter the sordid 
struggle — even at a time when all knowledge of 
war causes and war guilt were at their disposal. 
From April, 1917, to April, 1918, there were not 
enough volunteers come forward of their own 
free will sufficient to hold three miles of battle- 
front ; and this in face of every conceivable form 
of propaganda, and at the frantic entreaty of 
men like Roosevelt, Root, and many others of 
weight and importance; and they did not come 
forward until they were forcibly driven in like 
sheep. ^i2g-j 



So for once, Mr. Roosevelt struck the wrong 
chord — and therefore failed to get a response 
to his liking. His failures were attributed to 
two things: (1) Mistaking the artificial for the 
real sentiment of the country; (2) That the peo- 
ple generally deemed him inconsistent — if not 
insincere. 

Had he not, in a measure, condoned the G-er- 
man invasion of Belgium, and in addition to 
this, had he not stated two months after the war 
began that "It is certainly desirable that we 
should remain entirely neutral"? When he 
made the sudden change he did not even have 
the sinking of the "Lusitania" for a reason. 

The most charitable thing that may be said 
of Mr. Roosevelt's position in the war contro- 
versy is that it was both unintelligible and in- 
consistent. 

The arguments that Mr. Roosevelt indulged 
in when he became a pro-ally partisan were 
typical of the arguments that were used from 
time to time by those who insisted that America 
should enter the war; and the basis for these 
arguments, might well be casually examined in 
this chapter. 

It was urged against Germany that she had 
been preparing for forty years, a great fighting 
machine, which was deemed a menace to the 
peace of the world, and which had been assem- 
bled for the purpose of world-conquest. 

During the period of the war, and since, 
thousands of people in a parrot-like way, voiced 
their sentiments regarding Germany's war 
guilt by repeating the threadbare remark : ' ' That 
Germany for fifty years was preparing for a 
world war. ' ' So far as these parrot-like individ- 
uals are concerned, this thoughtless and superfi- 
cial view settled the whole matter, without 

[123] 



regard to any other consideration. The follow- 
ing consideration of the subject is not intended 
for the benefit of these parrots — for parrots 
never learn — but rather for the rising genera- 
tion who may approach this great subject with- 
out prejudice, and only in quest of the truth. 

For instance, these human parrots were not 
told by Mr. Roosevelt, or Mr. Root, or Mr. 
Choate, or the paid press, that Premier Asquith 
of England in January, 1914, more than six 
months before the war began, delivered his 
soul of the following regarding Germany's mil- 
itary preparedness: ''iTlie German army is 
vital to the very life and independence of the 
German nation, surrounded as Germany is by 
other nations each of which possesses armies 
almost as powerful as her own." 

Mr. Lloyd George expressed practically the 
same view. Surely these men are in a position 
to qualify as experts in these matters ; and their 
opinion on this subject should receive more 
weight than that of a million ordinary propa- 
ganda mongers. 

Now, let us examine the question consistently. 
Germany has been accused of preparedness. Is 
that a crime? Let us see. Mr. Roosevelt has 
preached preparedness — so has Mr. Asquith 
and Mr. Lloyd George. They have claimed that 
if a nation makes itself formidable no one will 
wantonly attack that nation. Therefore, if that 
rule be true, how could Germany render herself 
free from attack without preparedness! Or, is 
it that preparedness in Britain and the United 
States is a national virtue, and in Germany a 
crime ? 

But it has been said that Germany had been 
preparing for nearly fifty years for the World 
War — with that very definite thing always in 
* [124] 



view. According to this tribe of critics (and 
their nnmber is legion)-, Germany immediately 
after 1871 began her plans for world conquest. 
It is held by military authorities that owing to 
new inventions and general deterioration, war 
equipment becomes to a great degree obsolete 
every ten years. If the claim of Germany's 
enemies be true, namely, that she had been pre- 
paring to cast her thunderbolt for forty-four 
years — then it must be admitted that Germany 
prepared at least four times during that time, 
and saw her stupendous exertions come to 
naught. 

The fact is that there never has been a year 
since 1880 that Germany, relatively speaking, 
has not been in a position to carry on war 
against France and Russia as successfully as in 
1914; and there were several occasions — if 
world conquest were her aim — that she could 
have started with twice the probability of suc- 
cess as in 1914 — notably at the time when Great 
Britain was engaged in crushing the Boer Re- 
public, and also when Russia's fighting force 
was grappling with Japan on the shores of the 
Pacific. 

If we admit that preparedness was not a 
crime on Germany's part, and if we agree with 
Mr. Roosevelt that Germany, due to untoward 
circumstances, was justified in seeking a pas- 
sage through Belgium, then it is difficult to see 
what reason Mr. Roosevelt, for instance, should 
liave had for the condemnation of Germany and 
the espousal of the cause of the Entente, partic- 
ularly during 1915. It may be ventured that the 
sinking of the ''Lusitania" afforded a reason. 
Owing to not knowing the truth, there is no 
question that thousands were incensed at Ger- 
many for this act ; but certainly Mr. Roosevelt, 

[135] 



or Mr. Choate, or Mr. Root must have been in 
possession of the knowledge that the "Lusi- 
tania ' ' was a munition ship ; and that her vast 
cargo of explosives was thought to have rendered 
her safe from attack owing to the presence of 
women and children on board. Had not Great 
Britain held that the necessities of war made 
it imperative that she starve Germany into sub- 
mission — knowing that thousands of innocent 
women and children would be the victims of that 
procedure? Germany, in order to save herself 
from destruction, was compelled to announce 
that she would sink any ship, no matter of what 
character, that contained war material which 
would ultimately be used to slaughter her sol- 
diers. In each case came the slaughter of the 
innocents. 

But how could any sane man, much less one 
possessing the mental acumen of Mr. Roosevelt, 
find it in his heart to condemn one country, un- 
der these conditions, and laud the other, is be- 
yond human understanding. In looking at this 
question now, with authentic knowledge in our 
possession regarding the " Lusitania, " we are at 
a loss to characterize as the most infamous 
those war promoters who sought to safeguard 
the shipments of munitions under cover of in- 
nocent women and children, and the government 
officials, high and low, who persistently falsified 
the facts by declaring that no munitions were in 
the hold of the ' * Lusitania. " 

As time went on, Mr. Roosevelt became more 
and more belligerent; more anti-German and 
quite pro-British. He now condemns Germany 's 
preparedness, although he recommends extreme 
preparedness for America; he roundly de- 
nounces the invasion of Belgium and character- 
izes the sinking of the ' ' Lusitania ' ' as butchery ; 

[126] 



he can see nothing good in Germany, and holds 
Great Britain np, not only as a model, but as a 
savior of mankind. 

Mr. Roosevelt's course in the war was typical 
of that of many leading men, and no doubt in- 
fluenced public opinion in America, and to some 
considerable extent throughout the world. It 
is, therefore, quite interesting to discover, or to 
attempt to discover, what produced so decided a 
change in Mr. Roosevelt's war views within a 
period of six months from September, 1914. 
The only outstanding event during that time 
was the sinking of the "Lusitania," a subject we 
have just discussed. 

For instance, on September 28th, 1914, two 
months after the invasion of Belgium, and while 
the papers were filled with accounts of German 
atrocities, we find Mr. Roosevelt delivering him- 
self of the following, as published in the Out- 
look: 

"I am not passing judgment on Germany's 
action I admire and respect the Ger- 
man people. I am proud of the German blood 
in my veins. When a nation feels that the 
issue of a contest in which, from whatever 
reason, it finds itself engaged will be national 
life or death, it is inevitable that it should act 
so as to save itself from death and to perpet- 
uate its life What has been done in 

Belgium has been done in accordance with 
what the Gemians unquestionably sincerely 
believed to be the course of conduct necessi- 
tated by Germany's struggle for life." 
After reading this paragraph, written as it 
was at one of the most important periods of the 
war, and taking this in conjunction with Mr. 
Roosevelt's course later, we are compelled to 
add to the crime of insincerity that of another, 
which is best conveyed by the luminous words of 

[127] 



Lincoln : — ''The man who will not consider botk 
sides of a question is dishonest." 

That there were two sides to the German inva- 
sion of Belgium, two sides to the sinking of the 
'^Lusitania," two sides to atrocities, two sides to 
the submarine controversy, two sides to Ger- 
many's preparedness, and, finally two sides to 
the guilt of starting the war Mr. Roosevelt, of 
all men, should have known. 

Yet in the face of these facts, Mr. Roosevelt 
took an uncompromising stand against Ger- 
many, practically turning face-around from the 
position he took during the first months of the 
conflict. 

No finer tribute could be paid any people than 
that paid the Germans by Mr. Roosevelt, as 
heretofore quoted. No doubt he would have 
rendered the same generous tribute to the peo- 
ple of England or of France. It may be urged 
that it was German leadership that he suddenly 
feared. If so, he was still on unproven ground. 
For nearly the whole lifetime of Theodore 
Roosevelt, was not Germany's record for keep- 
ing the peace "as clean as a hound's tooth;" 
while the hands of her opponents were con- 
stantly, in season and out of season, steeped in 
human blood. 

Take the record of Great Britain, whose cause 
he found in his heart to espouse, constantly at 
war, stifling in the most cruel and bloody way 
any opposition to her imperial will. 

How could Mr. Roosevelt with a clear con- 
science anticipate German world rule, of which 
he had no positive knowledge, and overlook the 
brutal world-rule of Great Britain, existing un- 
der his own eyes, as exemplified by Ireland and 
India! Did he not see the people of Ireland 
held by Great Britain as a subject and conquered 

[128] 



people, by no principle known to individual, na- 
tional, international or universal law! Did lie 
not realize that Ireland was entitled to her full 
and complete freedom on the two great princi- 
ples underlying all true nationality — ^^namely, 
the ethnological, as well as the geographical! 
Did he not loiow that India was kept in complete 
bondage by Great Britain, in opposition to the 
national aspirations of three hundred millions 
of people whose aspirations were just as legiti- 
mate as the national aspirations of Roosevelt 
himself! Had he any more reason to fear 
"German character" when it comes to world 
domination — if it ever were intended to come to 
world domination — than the "British charac- 
ter" which Mr. Roosevelt's fellow Nobel prize 
man — the sweet singer of India — Dr. Tagore, 
was compelled reluctantly to describe as fol- 
lows : 

"Ever since my arrival in London I have 
been so much surrounded by crowds of people 
that correspondence has become well-nigh, im- 
possible. From all I see and hear I now un- 
derstand one thing very clearly, more clearly 
than ever before, that at present we are fully 
and fatally under the heels of the carnivorous 
English. They are overbearingly powerful. 
.... At the time of the frightful English 
atrocities in the Punjab last year I thought 
that they might have been purely accidental, 
due mainly to grotesque panic. But from the 
official reports of the parliamentary debates 
on the subject, I now thoroughly realize that 
that savagely callous brutality permeates 
every particle of blood that flows in their 
veins, and is indelibly ingrained in the very 
marrow of their bones. Some of these human 
beings here have even admired the blood- 
soaked feats of General Dyer as ^splendid 
[129] 



brutality.' In this connection I have been 
more than shocked at the revolting signs of 
blood-thirsty ferocity amongst even the 
women of England. The time has come when 
we must be thoroughly convinced that we 
have nothing, absolutely nothing, to expect 
from the British government and the British 
people. To expect anything from them is to 
insult one's own self. So long we were under 
the hj^pnotic spell of the seductive phantoms 
of the hope that they will give and we receive. 
They were to be the givers and we the beg- 
gars. But we are lucky indeed that they are 
not capable of making gifts. For gifts ruin 
the weak sooner and easier than deceit. If 
we were strong, if we were powerful, then 
acceptance of gifts could not make us small, 
could not shrink our souls. Every great na- 
tion accepts gifts from others. It is like ac- 
cepting taxes. The one who has always gets. 
The king ever gets, but the beggar never. 
So even death is better for us than to extend 
our hands to receive gifts from such a people 
as the British." 

The above is true of British leadership as now 
constituted, as constituted in 1914 when the 
great war was staged, and as has been consti- 
tuted for centuries. Yet Mr. Roosevelt, by some 
peculiar mental process (if we exclude political 
ambition) brought himself to see that all right 
was on Britain's side, and all wrong on the 
side of Germany. 

In judging between these nations, had Mr. 
Roosevelt forgotten recent history — had he for- 
gotten that when America was struggling to 
free herself from the shame of slavery that 
Great Britain, in every conceivable way, stifled 
her efforts? It is unnecessary here to recall 
these things; but it is proper to mention that 

[130] 



Great Britain refused to loan America money 
on that occasion — refused even to list American 
bonds. And it remained for Germany to make 
the necessary loan of millions to this country. 
Not only this, but Germany contributed in 
many ways to relieve America from the results 
of her devastating" civil war. If Mr. Roosevelt 
forgot the kindness of Germany in 1863, Mr. 
Lincoln's administration did not, for we find 
Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, instructing 
the American Minister at Berlin as follows : — 
''You will not hesitate to express assurance of 
the constant good will of the United States 
towards the Iring and the people who dealt with 
us in good faith and great friendship during the 
great trials through which Ave have passed. ' ' 

In implicitly following British leadership in 
the war, and urging his fellow citizens to that 
course, was not Mr. Roosevelt losing sight of a 
very important event in recent Anglo-American 
history — an event which showed clearly the 
character of not the "Beast of Berlin," but 
rather the beast of London ? Did he forget when 
the British lion sought to press her bloody paws 
on the throat of Venezuela and was only driven 
from her prey by Grover Cleveland, who was 
compelled to deliver what was practically a war 
ultimatum before the beast was driven otf I 

Leopards cannot change their spots, but 
wolves have been known to appear in sheeps' 
clothing — but usually it is children, not men, 
who are deceived thereby. 

But how clearly even the children of America 
were made to see Germany's ulterior intentions 
and her manifest guilt and her unmistakable 
program for world conquest, by such men as Mr. 
Roosevelt! Did not her national motto — her 
slogan — ''Deutchland Ueber AUes," prove it? 

[131] 



How forcibly, how timely, and how intelligently 
this phase of German's apparent guilt was 
brought home to the American people! 
''Deutchland above all" was certainly ominous 
and Hunnish; and the future historians when 
they compare this evil slogan with those em- 
ployed by Great Britain and America will un- 
doubtedly otfhand be convinced of Germany's 
guilt, and they will then understand what in- 
duced many Americans to enter the contest 
against her ! Compare, if you will, that modest, 
ethical, considerate, and Christian slogan of 
Christian America — ''America first;" or that 
equally modest and Christian of our late ally — 
"Rule Britannia." 

It is reputed that a * ' popular divine ' ' of Win- 
nipeg, Canada, declared from the pulpit that an 
Ally uniform would be a direct passport to 
heaven. If there were any question regarding 
this, there certainly should have been none had 
Great Britain and America taken the precaution 
to have their mottoes or slogans emblazoned on 
their soldiers' imiforms — "America First" and 
"Rule Britannia." As the war made the por- 
tals of Heaven a very busy place — this would 
have facilitated matters, making it more easy 
for St. Peter to separate the sheep from the 
goats. 

To narrate the shortcomings of Theodore 
Roosevelt, now, to some of the American people 
would be as cruel and heartless as to tell chil- 
dren that there is no Santa Clans. Nationally, 
we have not yet reached the level of a normal 
sense in this country. We are young yet ; and 
at times somewhat childlike. We still demand 
a hero, or a victim. The only difference is, we 
demand a live victim and are content with a dead 
hero. 

[132] 



Theodore Roosevelt realized that for a time 
he possessed the love and affection of the Amer- 
ican people perhaps to a greater degree than 
did any other American in our history; but he 
afterwards saw that love turn to cold ashes — 
and that long before his untimely end. Ameri- 
ca's love for Theodore Roosevelt was not con- 
stant — it burst into a flame and then died down 
— almost going out — and now we see the after- 
glow, stimulated by memory which recalls noth- 
ing but virtue, exalted manhood and nobility of 
soul. In the presence of the fresh broken earth, 
all else is forgotten. 

Now that Theodore Roosevelt has passed into 
history, his life belongs to mankind. Like all 
great lives, it is an inheritance — but one that 
must be appraised. Its sentimental value must 
pass away in the presence of cold, calculating, 
stem analysis. 

I do not purpose judging Roosevelt the man, 
or Roosevelt the statesman by his world-war 
record. All great men have their inherent 
weaknesses. The larger the diamond, the more 
liable we are to find a flaw. Many are the 
things that wreck virtue. The blazing jewel, 
the sweet nectar of flattery, place and power — 
all these sway the human lieart and deflect it 
from its true orbit. 

Roosevelt was possessed, as perhaps no other 
American, with an overpowering sense of the 
divine right to rule. When he was relegated to 
private life it was as though a huge dynamo was 
detached from the intricate machinery of Amer- 
ican life. When the war came on, Roosevelt, 
like a mighty engine, puffing and panting, was 
on a side-track. 

Wilson's neutrality was Roosevelt's appar- 
ent opportunity. Was not eighty per cent of 

[133] 



America, Entente in sympathy, and did they 
not need a leader? Thus reasoning, Roosevelt 
soon was on his way. 

But America, although sympathetic, had not 
yet lost the sense of discernment. They saw 
Roosevelt, overnight, turn from neutral grey 
to partisan red. How could thinking people 
reconcile his burning zeal (when but a day previ- 
ous he was the neutral) and that in the face of 
recent events — such as the recent swallowing of 
Egypt by Great Britain, the invasion of neutral 
China by the Allied forces, the coercion of 
Greece and the ruthless destruction of neutral 
commerce, not mentioning the vaunted program 
of his new-found friends which had for its in- 
famous object the starvation of the women and 
children of an entire nation? 

This chapter has to do quite as much with 
insincerity as with guilt. In reviewing this 
question of insincerity, one cannot overlook the 
war activities of such an outstanding figure as 
the late Joseph H. Choate. 

When the war began, Mr. Choate has passed 
the allotted years of life, was rich in human 
experience, possessed the power as few others 
of his countrymen possessed, of not only analyz- 
ing but weighing human motives and human 
forces as well. When the war broke out, Mr. 
Choate was United States Minister to Great 
Britain. It will be remembered that the United 
States immediately declared its neutrality. But 
Mr. Choate was anything but neutral. Even so 
early as October 8, 1914, we find him writing an 
introduction for a book by Professor Cramb 
(Professor of Modern History, Queen's Col- 
lege, London), entitled "Germany and Eng- 
land." This book was made up of a series of 
lectures delivered by Professor Cramb which 

[134] 



sought to show that Germany was shaping herself 
for a war on Great Britain. Mr. Choate in this 
introduction warmly supports Great Britain, 
decries Germany, and among other things, says : 
* ' It is truly an imperial contest between the Ger- 
man Empire of the future, that is to be won only 
by war, and the British Empire, whose chief 
interests now and in all the future is peace 
throughout the world. ' ' 

That is very fine and sounds exceedingly well, 
but Mr. Choate in a former page has set forth 
Britain's title to the great empire (one-fifth the 
world's surface), which she now seeks to hold — 
in peace. Mr. Choate clearly shows that the 
peace that Great Britain now seeks is the peace 
that the robber, content now to hold his ill- 
gotten gains, desires. Mr. Choate remarks: 
''Since the days of Frederick the Great, while 
England, largely by force of arms, has extended 
her imperial power all over the world, Germany 
has remained cooped up within her narrow 
boundaries, with inadequate access to the sea, 
and without room for her rapidly increasing 
population. ' ' 

So Mr. Choate, already on borrowed time, is 
willing (God only knows why) to stultify him- 
self by coming to the defense of a people who 
created an empire by force of arms and who 
now hold title to much of this empire by force 
of arms ; and he now joins with those who decry 
as criminal the aspirations of another people 
for legitimate world expansion — an expansion 
that has become necessary by reason of in- 
creased population. And Mr. Choate had for- 
gotten that these people who sought legitimate 
expansion (if they did seek expansion) re- 
ceived the following certificate of character 
from the same Professor Cramb whose book Mr. 

[135] 



Choate lauds. Professor Cramb says: ''And 
let me say with regard to Germany that of all 
England's enemies, she is by far the greatest; 
and by 'greatness' I mean not merely magni- 
tude, nor her millions of soldiers, her millions 
of inhabitants, I mean grandeur of soul." 

The leaders of the Entente Allies and their 
associates accomplished that which they claimed 
would make the world a decent place to live in — 
namely the crushing of Germany. The peoples 
of the world for two long years have been look- 
ing for the promised healing, peace — but no one 
has discovered any signs of healing or any evi- 
dences of the coming of that new world for 
which sacrifices of blood and treasure, without 
parallel, were made. 

Could the deluded peoples of France, Great 
Britain and America have imagined that the 
following verse should be written two' years 
after the close of the war^ — after the "great 
victory" had been won — regarding one of their 
sons who was given as a sacrifice, and these 
lines written by an Englishman to the "Un- 
known Soldier" whom England endeavored to 
honor by placing his remains alongside of her 
Immortals. 

"T/ie Unknown Man" 

(It is proposed to bury an "Unknown Man" 
in Westminster Abbey, on November 11, as the 
typical hero and patriot) : 
"Unknown he died; unknowing lived, maybe; 

The dupe of men more worldly-wise than he. 

He knew not by what craft he was betrayed 

To fight in wars that selfish hearts had made ; 

Nor knew the cause of that curst strife, nor 
knew 

ri36] 



It was his very brother-man he slew. 
Now slain, the folk who sent him to his doom 
Acclaim him Hero, mock with pompous tomb. 
On Unknown Man their idle grief bestowing: 
Must we not rather mourn the Man Unknow- 
ing?" 

There is not a statesman in London or Paris 
or Washington, who does not know that the at- 
tempt at the strangulation of Germany, as em- 
bodied in the Treaty of Versailles is one of the 
outstanding causes of world unrest today; and 
has been the principal factor in keeping world 
wounds open and inflamed, and therefore ren- 
dering them incurable. This knowledge is of 
no avail to mankind generally for the reason 
that it is secretly and cowardly held and en- 
tertained, and scarcely whispered even to inti- 
mates and associates less the holders of these 
views might be deemed pro-German. The false 
propaganda forces which were let loose in order 
to win the war for the Allies have created a 
condition of mind generally which renders it 
inexpedient, not to say dangerous, for world 
leaders to tell the plain truth, now that truth is 
so necessary, so essential and so vital. 

Lloyd George knows, Clemenceau knows, and 
Wilson, if he be in full possession of his facul- 
ties, knows, that before we can have world peace 
and world health the evil that they perpetrated 
in Paris must be destroyed — that the poisons 
that they injected into world wounds must be 
removed. 

Neither the peace of the victors nor the 
league of the conquerors can stand. The sober, 
reasserted conscience of America, for instance, 
has unmistakably announced that it will have 
nothing to do with these unclean things. The 

[137] 



toilers of all lands are awakening to the enor- 
mity of this capitalistic and imperialistic crime. 

In this chapter, I propose calling attention, 
briefly, to those immediate things which must be 
done, or more strictly speaking, undone, before 
we can even approach a condition of peace which 
shall contain any of the elements of permanency. 

In seeking to trace world discontent to its 
source — or more strictly speaking, sources — it 
may be of some purpose, among other things, 
to mention the case of Russia as proof of the 
condition of mind of present world statesman- 
ship by which we are clearly shown that evil 
passions have taken possession of world leader- 
ship, and the actions of these leaders differ in 
no degree from their predecessors of one hun- 
dred or five hundred years ago. It is the same 
old story of tyranny and revenge which has 
blinded all of them to everything excepting an 
insatiable desire to feed on the morbid pleasures 
that emanate from their power to inflict pun- 
ishment and execute vainglorious passions. 

Never have we had so striking and so illumi- 
nating examples of history repeating itself as 
in some of the main features of the late war. 
We have many exact reproductions of actions 
and events of bygone days — illustrating to the 
full that human nature (in so far as world lead- 
ership is concerned) does not change — that even 
under the skin of a Wilson you find flowing the 
blood of a George the Third. 

The dastardly treatment of Russia by Great 
Britain, France and America is but a repeti- 
tion of the inhuman and illogical treatment of 
France by Great Britain in 1793; when as a 
result (and for no other reason) of the destruc- 
tion of the French monarchy, Great Britain cut 
off all diplomatic relations with France, laying 

[138] 



the foundation for a hateful struggle of twenty- 
five years' duration, and which cost thousands 
of lives and millions in treasure, not counting 
hatred, which even a century and a quarter has 
not obliterated. 

France, at that time, in no way had attacked 
England, as at the present time Russia cannot 
be charged with attacking either Great Britain, 
France or America, or in fact, any of her neigh- 
bors. It was simply a case of Great Britain 
interfering in the internal concerns of a for- 
eign country, without the slightest shadow of 
justification. George III and his ministers did 
not like the form of government that France 
had adopted (as England, France and America 
to-day do not like the form of government Rus- 
sia has adopted) in the place of a monarchy. 
The war with France was brought on to dis- 
courage, if not kill, the progress of democratic 
institutions in Europe. It was a war of opin- 
ions, not one of either territory or other ag- 
grandizement. 

In order to carry out this wicked program, 
every force, subterfuge and expedient known to 
the tyrant was adopted; as every force, mean, 
low and diabolical has been resorted to by Eng- 
land, France and America, in order to strangu- 
late Russia, while that unfortunate country is 
undergoing and suffering the pangs of a new 
birth. 

The great war was a tragedy without parallel. 
History will never apportion the exact guilt 
to those responsible for this human convulsion. 
The same thing cannot be said regarding the 
responsibility for the two sickening tragedies 
that are now being enacted before our very 
eyes — enacted, not in the moment of passion, 
but in cold blood, namely, the attempt at the 

[139] 



10 



strangulation of the German people by means 
of the so-called peace treaty ; and the suffocation 
of newborn Russia, at the hands of the same 
criminal leadership. 

Fortunately, there are evidences on every 
hand, that the conscience of mankind is awaken- 
ing to the appalling heinousness of these crimes. 
America was the first to repudiate the whole 
nefarious business; and consign to oblivion the 
man who so grossly misrepresented them, and 
misled them as well. 

Now that America has spoken and given her 
verdict on the war, the peace, and Wilson (not 
speaking of little Grreece that has just repudi- 
ated Allied leadership and all it stands for), we 
may now hope for the beginning of the work of 
real world reconstruction. 

Before closing this chapter I will attempt to 
outline a few important things which must be 
done in order that the debris may be cleared up 
and a firm foundation for universal peace estab- 
lished. 

The first consideration of the subject of world 
reconstruction will of course be a scrutiny of 
the League of Nations. It is unnecessary to 
state that no world reconstruction can be accom- 
plished without a loyal and sincere co-operation 
by the whole family of nations. 

We have, at present, a so-called League of 
Nations; but to all intents and purposes it is 
only a league of the conquerors — a league, 
primarily to conserve what the Allies won as a 
result of the war. 

If a league of nations is desirable, it should 
not be a league of the conquerors or an associa- 
tion (with America's aid) to conserve that 
which was won by the victors. It should be, 
primarily, organized for the purpose of pro- 

[UO] 



moting peace throughout the world on a basis 
of fair play and justice. In that case the Peace 
Settlement should have been arrived at and 
ratified by the whole league and not by the vic- 
tors. Such a conclusion should have been reached 
in an open world court in which Germany 
should have been heard, and in which the ques- 
tion of general guilt should have been passed 
upon, and not behind closed doors where only 
one side could be heard. 

Owing to the barbaric injustice of the peace 
teiTns it is evident to a novice that there is no 
incentive for the German people to get to work. 
Under the terms, Germany is compelled to give 
all her savings for the next thirty years to her 
enemies; and in addition to this, she must live 
on one-half what she formerly lived on, giving 
the balance to the victors. But this is not all. 
Germany cannot get financial assistance from 
the outside world owing to the fact that any in- 
crease that might result from the use of foreign 
capital will be appropriated by the Reparation 
Commission ; and no benefit will go to the pres- 
ent generation of Germans, much less being left 
in a position to return the borrowed money with 
interest. 

The sooner the world looks this hopeless con- 
dition squarely in the face, the better for the 
world (and by that I include Great Britain and 
France). 

Without delay, a world court should be es- 
tablished and its first business should be to in- 
quire into war causes, war guilt, and individual 
responsibility ; and then decide on what repara- 
tion, if any. 

If the Entente Allies show a disposition to 
take a sane view of the situation and will be 
content to abide by the decision of a full world 

[141] 



court, and if they show an earnest desire to 
aid in true world reconstruction, I would rec- 
ommend that the United States cancel her ten 
billion dollar claim against Europe. Broadly 
speaking, if Germany is in a position to pay, 
and is compelled to pay thirty billion dollars to 
the Allies, then it is certain that Great Britain 
and France are in a position to pay ten billion 
to America; but if one cancels, all should can- 
cel. 

There are a number of appealing reasons why 
the United States should cancel this ten billion 
dollar debt. (1) If (for world peace) cancel- 
lations become the order of the day. (2) If, as 
Roosevelt and other leaders claimed, be true, 
that Great Britain and France from the opening 
of the war were heroically fighting America's 
battles and making her secure from future at- 
tack by Germany, then this ten billion dollars, 
and much more, should have been contributed 
to the Allies as just compensation. (3) This 
ten billion dollars scarcely represents the blood 
money profits of America during the first two 
years of the struggle. (4) The repayment of 
so vast a sum will go far to impoverish Europe 
and will add nothing to our own material com- 
forts or necessities. Europe cannot pay us in 
money. And even if she did, that w^ould not add 
to our real wealth, as in order to get value for 
it, we would have to re-spend it again in Europe. 
Europe will have to pay us in products. 
For years to come Europe will be purchasing 
more from us than we will purchase from her. 
Therefore, this ten billion dollars will be in- 
creasing yearly and may reach the grand total 
of twenty billion dollars before it is liquidated. 
But what will happen when Europe decides to 
pay this claim I We will have to accept billions 

[142] 



of dollars of her products in excess of our ex- 
ports. That might all be very good if each indi- 
vidual American received an equal share of 
such importation — but that would not be the 
case. The fact is that while this debt would be 
in process of repayment (in products), Ameri- 
can factories to that extent would be idle, and 
our workingmen out of work. If we resort to a 
high protective tariff, for relief, then we can 
keep these products out ; but if we do, then how 
is Europe to pay us? Under the world's pres- 
ent economic system, immense foreign credits 
such as these, particularly by an exporting na- 
tion, should be considered a liability instead of 
a true asset. The difficulty regarding these 
colossal debts is that they are generally not paid 
by the generation contracting them, but left to 
oncoming generations — with perhaps the excep- 
tion of the interest. The hatred of the creditor 
by the debtor is ever present — as it will be in 
this case — let us make no mistake about that. 
There is not an American who will lose a meal 
by the cancellation of this debt; but there are 
millions in Europe who will go hungry while it 
is being paid. And I will declare further, that 
if America insists on its re-payment, owing to 
our peculiar economic system, thousands will 
go hungry in this country, by being thrown out 
of work, while Europe sends the result of her 
labor to cover the payment. 

From the very beginning of the war America 
held the key to peace. That key was economic. 
She failed to use it ; and was content to revel in 
blood money profits. She still holds an eco- 
nomic key which may yet unlock the door to 
peace. Will she use it? 



[143] 



CHAPTER VII 

The Peace op Versailles 

Strange though it may appear, the great mass 
of the peoples of the world, vaguely fought for 
ideals. This is quite as true of Germany as of 
Britain, or America. No country had a monop- 
oly of spirit, or good intention. The peoples of 
no country, the day before the war began, 
wanted the property of another. They fought, 
first of all, and mainly, against the possibility 
of foreign aggression — for home and fireside. 
In pursuit of this, the Grermans felt that they 
had to invade Belgium and attack France ; and 
later the American people, with much less rea- 
son, brought themselves to believe that they 
were called upon to sacrifice their sons, on for- 
eign soil, 3,000 miles from home, in order to 
protect their country from some future attack, 
vague and ill-founded though the possibility of 
that might be. First of all, the laudable ideal 
for which they all fought, as has been stated, 
was for the preservation and the protection of 
home and country. As the conflict progressed, 
new ideals, particularly in America, were in- 
jected; and soon the warriors on both sides be- 
gan to feel that they were engaged in a sacred 
cause — even to the hastening of Christ's King- 
dom on Earth. 

To-day, after the conflict has subsided, the 
German, still confident of the righteousness of 
his position, is quite at a loss to interpret this 
so-called decree of Providence, and on looking 
over the whole field, is beginning to suspect 
that it is not a final decree, or even a decree at 

[144] 



all, but only a painful chapter in a great volume, 
a volume that contains many chapters ; and per- 
haps in the last chapter the final decree shall 
be set forth, even in words that all nations may 
understand, words that will burn like fire into 
the hearts and conscience of mankind. 

And what of the victors? How do they fare 
in mind and estate since tlie war closed! 

Compare to-day, if you will, with Armistice 
Day, that riotous culmination of brute force, 
that orgy of sensuous emotions, that heathen 
war-dance of the nations around the flickering 
embers of a dying civilization, that fitting cul- 
mination of lies, deceit, hatred, malice and 
blood-lust; and then ask yourself why all this 
change in spirit, if not in understanding? 

Was there ever since the world began so 
complete a disillusionment! Was ever bread in 
the hand, so mysteriously turned to stone, or 
the rainbow of promise turned to a thunder- 
cloud or gold to dross, as since one-half of the 
world, by physical force, successfully crushed 
and enslaved the other half of God's creation — 
Grod's handiwork — God's own sons and daugh- 
ters. 

To-day, the world sees nothing but the tri- 
mnph of brute force and its evil fruits — a curse 
alike to the victor as well as the vanquished. 

As to whether Britain's starvation methods 
of warfare or Wilson's ideality contributed 
most to break down German resistance and 
compelled her to surrender, I will not here dis- 
cuss ; but I will venture to say, that history will 
bear me out, that the President's pronounce- 
ments betrayed the German people, and wit- 
tingly or unwittingly assisted in causing them 
to be delivered, body and soul, into the hands 
of the most rapacious and soulless diplomatic 

[145] 



robbers that ever imposed their lustful will on 
a vanquished people. 

The American President transformed himself 
into the serpent, not a serpent with two eyes, 
but with fourteen, each of which he used not 
only to charm, but to captivate. He crawled 
into the German home, where poverty, destitu- 
tion and despair reigned supreme; and he 
promised better things ; peace of mind and body, 
and that beyond even the understanding; he 
crawled into the trenches and seduced by his 
honeyed words and fair promises the scarred 
grim veterans, who stood for months and years 
immovable, before the onslaught of a united 
world. 

He promised them bread — but he gave them a 
stone — he held out hope — but left them in mor- 
tification and despair. 

In no sense, or in no particular, is the so- 
called Peace Treaty in accordance w^ith Mr. 
Wilson's promises and stipulations — promises 
that were acquiesced in by Britain and France, 
and upon which Germany consented to lay 
down her arms. 

It must be remembered that the Germans did 
not surrender unconditionally; but expressed 
themselves as willing to end the war on the 
basis of President Wilson's Fourteen Points. 
In order that there might be no misunderstand- 
ing regarding this, the President addressed a 
note to Germany, asking them to make it plain, 
beyond conjecture, that they would lay down 
their arms and end the struggle on the basis of 
his Fourteen Points. Germany made it clear, 
in her reply, that this was her understanding 
and intention. It will be remembered that up to 
this time Britain and France had allowed the 
world to understand that Mr. Wilson was the 

[146] 



accredited and official spokesman for those 
forces which were at war on Germany. Now 
that Germany was about to capitulate (and that 
due in a large measure to the operation on the 
German mind of the Fourteen Points), Great 
Britain and France immediately insisted on 
adding two new conditions for the cessation of 
hostilities; one of which completely nullified 
Mr. Wilson's "Freedom of the Seas" stipula- 
tion, and the other had to do with reparation, 
which subsequently proved another name for 
indemnities, by which the Allies were able to 
crush Germany, both politically and commer- 
cially. 

It is true, that the task of putting Mr. Wil- 
son's Fourteen Points into a concrete agree- 
ment would be almost as impossible as it would 
be to harness a rainbow, or set forth in terms of 
business the Milky Way ; yet after all, no well- 
intentioned man, even one without experience 
in diplomacy, could fail to understand, not only 
the substance, but the spirit of Mr. Wilson's 
deliverances. Friend and foe alike knew that 
these stood for the rights of man; for better 
world relations, and for the exaltation of jus- 
tice. Lloyd George undoubtedly understood 
Wilson's message to mankind. The force of 
these utterances may even at least have tem- 
porarily punctured the skin and entered the 
dry bones of Clemenceau — that evil spirit of a 
dead past. 

Yet, Wilson's was the light that failed — failed 
in the darkest and most tragic hour since the 
creation of the world — at the cmshing and dis- 
memberment of a great nation and a great 
people. 

All will agree that the representatives of the 
nations assembled in Paris had the greatest 
[147] 



opportunity of any group of men during all 
time, of placing the affairs of the world on a 
sound and enduring basis and laying the foun- 
dation for an international peace and good will 
which would stand the test of time. Then, what 
were the causes which produced so unhappy an 
ending to that which promised so much for 
mankind? There were many contributing fac- 
tors; the chief of which was the helpless and 
impotent condition of Germany owing to the 
complete and overwhelming victory of the 
Allies, due to American intervention. With all 
resistance broken down, a one-sided peace is 
inevitable. A victor, in that case, may go any 
distance that hate and greed may dictate. An 
unbeaten army in the field although incapable 
of victory, makes for compromise — and com- 
promise in nine cases out of ten more nearly 
balances justice than a complete victory of 
one of the participants, particularly if it be a 
physical victory. 

Mr. Wilson's original formula, ''Peace with- 
out Victory," would have prevented this peace 
catastrophe, had it been logically and consist- 
ently adhered to ; but peace by victory, not only 
placed Germany in a position where she could 
not resist injustice, but it also placed Mr. Wil- 
son and his precious Fourteen Points in just 
as impotent a condition as Germany; for the 
reason that with Germany out of the way and 
not to be feared, America was of no further use 
to Britain and France — a fact which the Presi- 
dent soon discovered when the Versailles Con- 
ference got down to serious, practical business. 

Being apprehensive regarding placing both 
Germany and America in the power of the 
Allies, under conditions named, I wrote the Ad- 
ministration and leading members of Congress 

[148] 



regarding our danger; pointing out that we 
were valued by Britain and France only so long 
as we were needed by them and useful to them, 
and if we allowed Germany to be beaten before 
definite war settlement conditions were arrived 
at, America would have no influence at the 
Peace Table, and that the result would be a 
peace settlement that would be both cruel and 
unjust, out of which would eventually come 
other wars. 

In addition to this I communicated to Con- 
gress and the Administration, that which I con- 
ceived to be the spirit in which the Peace Rep- 
resentatives should approach those questions 
upon the solution of which the future peace of 
the world depended. The following statements 
of the case, as well as the contention contained 
in the preceding paragraph, were swept aside 
particularly by the Administration, as being 
pro-German propaganda — propaganda calcu- 
lated to produce dissension between America 
and ''our loyal and honorable allies." I will 
leave it to my readers whether or not time and 
subsequent events have or have not proven the 
truth of my contention. The following is what 
I conceived to be the spirit in which the Peace 
Representatives should have approached their 
task: 

''The great War Drama is rapidly nearing 
its close. The world is turning its eyes towards 
universal peace. Between the final act of war 
and the dawn of a world peace lies a period of 
neither war nor peace, a period of uncertainty 
and doubt on the one hand, and faith and hope 
on the other. That period, the most momen- 
tous in all history, will be spanned by the great 
conference of the representatives of the nations 

[149] 



assembled for the purpose of adjusting present 
differences, and formulating rules for the guid- 
ance of nations in reference to their conduct — 
one toward the other. On the wisdom, justice 
and moderation of this great assembly depends 
in a large measure the future misery or happi- 
ness of mankind. 

The labors of this International Conference 
may come under two headings (1) the adjusting 
of all differences between the Central Powers 
and the Entente Allies, (2) the adjustment of 
differences that may exist between nations, 
without regard to how they were grouped dur- 
ing the war, and also the consideration of rules 
for the conduct of nations, naming penalties for 
the infraction of these rules, together with the 
adoption of means for the enforcement of de- 
cisions. 

There are those who contend that the time is 
not yet ripe for the formation of a League of 
Nations. Whether that claim can be substan- 
tiated or not, depends largely on how the Con- 
ference acquits itself in the first business 
before it, namely, the policy pursued in the 
settlement of the present war. If the rewards 
of the victor be exacted — if Christian diplomacy 
has no part in bringing to a close and settling 
this contest, if an eye for an eye and a tooth 
for a tooth policy still prevails, then the hope 
for future world peace is based on shifting 
sands. On the contrary, if the meeting of this 
great body shall mark the beginning of a new 
era, registering the hour on the dial of time 
when old things shall have passed away, these 
men who represent the nations must be imbued 
with the spirit of the great Spaniard, when he 
proclaimed, ** Whereas all the attributes of God 
are equal. His mercy will always be more dear 
to mankind than His justice. ' ' 

[150] 



The settlement with Germany will at the 
same time constitute the least and the most im- 
portant work of the Conference, the least in 
comparison with those transcendent questions 
which have to do with the very destiny of na- 
tions, and the most important as showing 
whether those who lead mankind and speak for 
them can rise above anger, malice, revenge and 
self-interest, thereby convincing the world that 
a League of Nations is not a dream. 

It is indeed unfortunate, that a World Con- 
ference whose findings and recommendations 
should be free from bias, should assemble so 
soon following a war that has left so many un- 
healed wounds and so many burning hearts. 
Conditions do not make for the purest and high- 
est order of judgment. However, the situation 
is to a certain extent saved by the prominent 
part that America will be called upon to play in 
the Council of the Nations. America's position 
is unique. Although she has been a leading fac- 
tor in deciding this contest, she has been called 
upon to sacrifice less blood and treasure than 
any of the contestants. On this account, Amer- 
ica will approach the Council Table in better 
temper and in a more judicial frame of mind 
than may be expected of her associates. 

It may well be assumed in advance that the 
American representatives will insist on just 
terms as between the Central Powers and the 
Entente Allies. In determining a ''just set- 
tlement" they in all likelihood, among other 
things, will take into consideration the follow- 
ing outstanding circumstances and conditions: 
(1) That a large portion of the German popula- 
tion had no lust for conquest, and had no hand 
in willing this war. That they were kept in igno- 
rance regarding the true object of their rulers, 

[151] 



and that they were constantly misinformed, 
through false propaganda, as to the trne situa- 
tion in all its relations. Therefore, any hard- 
ships or extreme measures that might be 
directed at German leaders will, without doubt, 
fall on the innocent in greater numbers than on 
the guilty. (2) Inasmuch as this is, in all prob- 
ability, the last onslaught of autocracy against 
the rising and united forces of a revitalized 
democracy, and that a new era is about to be 
ushered in, they will on this account temper 
justice with moderation if not with mercy, es- 
pecially when they remember that nearly all 
considerable nations represented at the great 
Council Table have grown to their present pro- 
portion by conquests more or less ambitious, if 
not lustful in their nature. (3) That any peace 
terms or settlement forced revengefully or ar- 
bitrarily on a great people will not and never 
can be permanent, as every nation has its pride 
and national honor. (4) America has very 
properly insisted, before meeting the German 
representatives, that they inaugurate a consti- 
tutional government in the Empire, or at least 
one in which the will of the people is supreme. 
That stipulation carries with it the supposition 
that the German people are capable of exercis- 
ing this right and will welcome this gift of 
Freedom. The further conclusion is logical, 
namely, that had all power been vested in the 
German people in August, 1914, and the people 
worked in harmony with the peoples of the 
other nations, this war would never have dark- 
ened the pages of history. If we refuse to ad- 
mit the truth of this conclusion, we then must 
confess that our insistence regarding the trans- 
fer of the supreme power from a select few to 
the shoulders of all the people, was and is, a 
vain thing. [153] 



Now, after these terrible pangs of Liberty, if 
a new Germany has been born and a new democ- 
racy created, free from the shackles of autoc- 
racy, our representatives, it is hoped, will not 
be found assisting in substituting the chains of 
the conqueror for those of the Kaiser." 

^ ^ ^ 4t ^ 

It is possible that Mr. Wilson did not assist 
in substituting ' ' the chains of the conqueror for 
those of the Kaiser," but he certainly assisted 
through his words and by the armies of which 
he was Commander-in-Chief, in delivering the 
German people, helpless and hopeless, into the 
hands of those who, with cunning and deceit, 
diabolically forged chains and shackles around 
their victims, placing them in as complete bond- 
age as those of any nation, or people, or tribe, 
in the world 's darkest past. The peace that has 
been consummated — is not only the peace of the 
savage — but added to this the cunning of that 
soulless product of our so-called civilization, 
that cynical servant of kings and courts, that 
creature who is devoid of every generous im- 
pulse — the modern diplomat. 

We may take the generous view of Mr. Wil- 
son's part in the peace tragedy — that he did 
not personally assist in putting the shackles of 
the conqueror on the German people ; but what 
must we think of the moral make-up of the man, 
not to speak of the mental, when we find him 
justifying this Versailles monstrosity, and 
blandly telling the world that it was conceived 
in the spirit of his Fourteen Points and born 
of Justice. 

Manifestly, we have here a case of mental 
collapse or one of moral reversal, or of both. 
Time alone may tell. 

It is not theories we are now dealing with ; it 
[153] 



is facts and consequences. It is important that 
we know not only the meaning of the Fourteen 
Points but also their purpose. As to their 
meaning no one was in doubt. If there ever was 
any doubt, it was as to their sincerity. They did 
not make an appeal to the intellect alone, 
but to the heart and conscience as well. They 
had to do with feeling, as well as with under- 
standing. They promised life, not death ; free- 
dom, not slavery ; a golden sunrise, not the low- 
ering shadows of the night; peace, good-will, 
and ''charity for all, and malice toward none." 

Their purpose was well understood by all. It 
was the pen working in conjunction with the 
sword. The psychologists of the Allies built 
more on Mr. Wilson's declarations than on a 
thousand belching cannon. He was a host in 
himself. His apparent spirit of fairness and 
conciliation, his assurances, his sympathy — all 
were calculated to alienate the German people 
from their rulers and place them unreservedly 
under the protection of that great new World 
Leader, who, far from the strife of Europe, had 
sent forth a message that had echoed in the 
hearts of all mankind. 

Mr. Wilson encouraged the people of Ger- 
many to rebel against their government — tacitly 
upholding the sacred and inalienable right of 
revolution. This they did. Thus the pen and 
the sword, working harmoniously together, sup- 
plemented by starvation, brought German lead- 
ers to ask a cessation of hostilities, for the pur- 
pose of ending the war on the basis of Mr. 
Wilson's promises and conditions, as embodied 
in the Fourteen Points. 

Before an agreement would be entered into 
which should have for a basis the Fourteen 
Points, the Germans were informed by Mr. Wil- 

[154] 



son that they would have to (1) dethrone the 
Kaiser (2) establish a representative govern- 
ment in Germany (3) evacuate all occupied ter- 
ritory (4) render themselves impotent and help- 
less by disarming. 

This they complied with in every detail — 
implicitly relying on Mr. Wilson's word and 
protection. 

And now let us see what they got. 

It is not my purpose to attempt a minute dis- 
section or a critical analysis of this so-called 
peace agreement, and what it means for man- 
kind. That task I will leave to those who pos- 
sess, to a much greater degree than I, the divine 
gift of seeing into the future and measuring con- 
sequences. 

As I approach this subject, it is with feelings 
of my own littleness and impotency, combined 
with those of pity, sorrow and contempt. When 
one views the enormity of this crime — it is not, 
as Milton says, to ''justify the ways of God to 
men," but how are we to justify the ways of 
these men to God I 

You ask, what will be the consequences of this 
peace? You might as well ask the scientist to 
name the consequences that would come from 
the implanting of the germs of a nameless dis- 
ease in the human body. Alas, not one genera- 
tion, but many would be required to render the 
sum total of the misery, suffering and degrada- 
tion that will follow. Not the first victim 
alone would make the sum total; but years 
hence, the babbling idiot, the dwarfed or de- 
formed creature, the innocent child with a dis- 
eased and polluted body, would form a part of 
an appalling whole, of the sum of the inevitable 
consequences. It is a computation beyond the 
power of man. 

[155] 

11 



A thousand years will not see the sum total 
of this peace crime. Millions of ill-nurtured 
mothers — a nation of stunted children — proud 
manhood in bondage — the brightest lights in all 
the world of science dimmed or extinguished — 
civilization in a large measure throttled and 
dying at its source. 

Were these peace terms that we have before 
us, that Mr. Wilson had in mind, by which he 
sought to detach the German people from their 
rulers — when he gave utterance to his Fourteen 
Points, and other important utterances, all bear- 
ing on the same important subject? Examine, 
carefully, and draw your conclusion. 

The Allies, according to latest advices just 
published, are demanding by way of indemnity 
(they call it reparation), thirty billions of dol- 
lars, in round figures. 

Now, first of all, let us try to understand what 
this sum means. Did I say ''understand" what 
this sum means? Such a thing is impossible. 
The human mind can no more grasp the stupen- 
dous significance of these figures than it can 
comprehend the immensity of space. The only 
thing we can do is to make some imperfect com- 
parisons. 

The significance of this colossal sum will be 
somewhat understood when we realize that the 
total valuation of all Belgium in 1914 was 
slightly in excess of six billions of dollars. In 
other words, six billions of dollars would fully 
pay for all Belgian lands, all buildings, both 
public and private, all machinery, railroads, fur- 
niture, bric-a-brac, art treasure, gold coin, in 
other words, the entire country and everything 
of value that it contains. Germany, it will be 
seen, is compelled to present to the Allies an 
amount of money sufficient to purchase the 

[156] 



lands, buildings, public improvements, art treas- 
ures, furniture, and everything of value not 
merely of one, but five Belgiums. 

And this in face of the fact that only a small 
portion of that country was damaged, and very 
few towns really destroyed. Her principal cities 
are just as intact to-day as they were before the 
war. The acreage under cultivation, at the 
present time, will be found nearly equal to that 
of 1913. 

Almost the same things may be said of 
France. In order to make it possible for the 
mind to comprehend true relationships, as be- 
tween colossal sums, I mention the fact that al- 
though twelve per cent of France was occupied 
by German troops, but three per cent of the total 
area was really devastated, and two per cent 
partially so. 

Even in the worst cases of devastation, no one 
can say that the property cannot be turned to 
some account. Now, assuming that four per 
cent of the total area of France has been com- 
pletely destroyed beyond hope of restoration, 
then it is evident that France lost four per cent 
of her total wealth. The total wealth of France 
in 1914 was approximately $60,000,000,000. 
Four per cent of this amount would equalt 
$2,400,000,000; in other words, $2,400,000,000 
would be the total amount that Germany should, 
in all conscience, be called upon to pay for the 
restoration of this devastated area; and that 
only upon proof of her war guilt and the inno- 
cence of her opponents. 

The above comparative figures are given only 
for the purpose of showing both consistency 
and true proportion. 

tThe devastated portion was richer than the average of 
France. It would be fair to raise this estimate somewhat. 

[157] 



Now view this $30,000,000,000 indemnity from 
another angle, and see what its imposition will 
mean to the German people. 

As there are approximately nine million fam- 
ilies in Germany (after the loss of Alsace-Lor- 
raine, Silesia and Poland) this would mean an 
assessment of about three thousand five hundred 
dollars on each and every family. Before the 
war, the average wealth of each family was ap- 
proximately $7,000, and the present value, with 
war depreciations, etc., cannot be even $6,000 so 
it will be seen that the people of Germany are 
called upon to pay to the Allies more than one- 
half the value of all their w^orldly possessions. 

Now, assume that the Allies are generous 
enough to permit Germany to pay off this 
amount in thirty years at 5% interest. This 
would be a total yearly amount of $2,000,000,000, 
or somewhat in excess of $300.00 per year for 
each and every family. The significance of this 
sum may be gathered from the fact that the 
average earning of the German family, prior to 
1914, was between five and six hundred dollars 
per year. 

Now, if this were a purely local tax, going 
into the municipal, state, and national treasury, 
which in turn would be spent at home amongst 
the people who paid the tax, it would be even 
then very burdensome, even if there were no 
other taxes ; but it must be remembered that this 
$300.00 per year, per family, will be in addition 
to the present burdensome taxes, and not only 
that, but every dollar of it must be sent abroad 
and not a penny of it will go into circulation at 
home. 

There is a vast difference between a country 
owing a debt of $30,000,000,000 to her own peo- 
ple, which would be represented in bonds held 

[158] 



by all classes of the people upon which interest 
would be collected, which interest would, in a 
large measure, cover any taxation that would 
be levied, and owing the same burden to outside 
nations. In the latter case, the total must 
be spent out of the country, for which there 
would be no return or no approach to reci- 
procity. 

Now, in what manner must this $30,000,000,- 
000 be paid, or rather this $300.00 per year, for 
each family? As it cannot be paid in money, it 
must be paid in goods — exports. In other 
words, the German people must send abroad, 
each year for thirty years, two billion dollars 
worth of her surplus products in excess of what 
she brings in, or, in other words, each family on 
an average must send out $300.00 worth of 
things to eat and to wear, and material for shel- 
ter over and above what she requires to dress 
itself, feed itself and shelter itself. 

As the savings of each average family in the 
nation, under normal conditions, is very small 
(in Germany it would not exceed $100.00, after 
all requirements had been met), it will be seen, 
even under the most favorable conditions, were 
each family to be compelled to send abroad, 
$300.00 worth of food, clothing and other mate- 
rials, from which no return would be received, 
what indescribable distress and want would en- 
sue. That being so, what imagination is neces- 
sary to picture the want, sufferings and degra- 
dation that will obtain throughout Germany, 
when the Allies will take their tribute from the 
meagre and depleted supplies, which meagre- 
ness will be inevitable for a generation, owing 
to the havoc of war. 

But if the above were the sum total of the 
infamy of the peace, one might hope to find 

[159] 



something of an extenuating nature, wliicli 
would soften and tone down its uglier aspects. 
On the contrary, the farther we penetrate into 
the subterranean passages of this Chamber of 
Horrors, the more evidence we find of the work 
of the assassin, of a premeditated, organized, 
systematic, and cowardly crime. 

They not only placed on the backs of the ema- 
ciated and impoverished German people, guilty 
and innocent alike, a load which will crush them 
to the earth, but not content with this, they have 
cut off the hands and feet of their victims, so 
that they can neither help themselves, or go 
forward with their burden. 

They have done this in a manner which I will 
attempt to relate and describe. 

Now, the great sinuous and flexible arm which 
Germany had stretched out to nearly every por- 
tion of the habitable globe, was her merchant 
marine. By means of this, she delivered 
promptly, and at the lowest possible cost, the 
proceeds of her great factories, her huge blast 
furnaces, her cotton mills, with their millions 
of spindles, her laboratories and her mines ; and 
in return, came back laden with the raw mate- 
rial, which would again feed the great mouths 
of her roaring and smoking industries. Behind 
this great arm, as it moved to and fro, back- 
ward and forward, over the face of the earth, 
were the great German people, with their mil- 
lions of skilled mechanics, their army of re- 
search workers, whose night lamps only went 
out with the stars; a nation devoted to indus- 
try, and therefore to the service of mankind. 

It was evident, therefore, that this powerful, 
efficient and purposeful machine would drive 
antiquated and time-serving, self-satisfied com- 
petitors, out of the world market, and thereby 

[160] 



cause trade jealousies — those things which al- 
ways make wars a possibility. 

As has been stated previously, the nation 
that suffered most from German competition, 
was Great Britain. It was quite natural and 
quite characteristic of that nation when, at the 
peace conference Germany lay helpless on the 
operating table, with Dr. Woodrow Wilson of 
Washington, D. C, that eminent psychologist and 
heart and brain specialist, administering the 
ether, and Surgeon Clemenceau of Paris, France, 
a doctor of the old school, who believes in heroic 
methods of surgery and blood-letting, using the 
knife, and that world renowned general prac- 
titioner. Dr. Lloyd George of London, England, 
a graduate of all schools, regular and irregular, 
a trance medium of high order, holding the 
bucket which is to receive the blood and carv- 
ings of the victim — it was quite natural that 
Dr. Lloyd George after seeing Germany disem- 
boweled for the benefit of France, should sug- 
gest to the operator that Germany's arm — her 
merchant marine arm — should be cut off at the 
shoulder. As Doctor Wilson was a metaphysician 
and anaesthetist and not a surgeon, no doubt 
he was not seriously consulted as to this by his 
colleagues; however, the arm was amputated, 
close to the shoulder. 

By this surgical operation the Allies de- 
stroyed Germany's merchant marine, which was 
a felling blow at her economic life and existence. 
With what completeness this act was performed, 
will be seen from the following: 

Germany is to deliver to the Allies all mer- 
chant vessels of over 1,600 tons that she pos- 
sesses and one-half of all vessels between 1,000 
and 1,600 tons, not counting trawlers and other 
minor craft. This means the utter impossibility 

[161] 



of Germany doing any business by water with 
the rest of the world, unless by using the ships 
of other nations. 

At the present time, owing to shortage of 
ships, other nations are consequently short of 
sea transportation facilities and it will be easily 
understood what price Germany will have to 
pay for such service, and how she is likely to be 
served. 

Out of this loot America gets 29 of the best 
freight and passenger vessels to be found in 
any harbor of the world, and this is but a frag- 
ment of the whole. Of this fleet is the George 
Washington, of 25,000 tons displacement, which 
will go down in history as the vessel which car- 
ried Woodrow Wilson to his political grave- 
yard ; and buried with him the fondest hopes of 
mankind. In addition to this vessel is the 
Vaterland, of 54,000 tons, the world's largest 
and most beautiful ship, and then there is the 
magnificent Lloyd creation — the Kronprinzessen 
Caecilie. 

Thus, Avith one stroke, that which has been the 
object of Germany's pride and her rivals' envy, 
has been taken from her — leaving her poor in- 
deed — ^but how has it robbed mankind? 

In vain will the little children of the world 
look for the playthings that only those Avho 
knew the heart of a child could produce. Silent 
as the grave will be that land of song and 
music, the refrain of which echoed around the 
world: God's silvery voice speaking to the souls 
of men. The world will look in vain, for years 
to come, for those mighty engines of steam and 
electricity, which remove mountains and turn 
the desert into the bower and the brook. From 
whence will come those countless instruments 
and inventions, by the cunning of which we can 

[162] 



almost interpret and register the unspoken 
thoughts of men; or to whom will we look to 
restore this drab and dreary world to the varied 
tints of the rainbow, or the colors of the bird 
and butterfly? 

That servant of the world is gone ; that serv- 
ant who, by night and day, for fifty years or 
more, by her industry and fair dealings has 
added to human pleasure, human knowledge 
and human comfort — is gone. The world will 
look long for the coming of her like again. 

It is known that the immense commercial body 
of Germany sat finiily on two great legs — coal 
and iron. With these she was moving forAvard 
commerciall}^, at a rate at which she was rap- 
idly out-distancing all rivals. For the benefit 
of France directly, and for the trade security 
of Britain indirectly, these mighty legs must be 
cut off. In doing this, it must be said that the 
surgeons did not perform so clean a job as in 
the case of the amputation of Germany's arm; 
an axe evidently being used instead of a knife. 
They mutilated the legs more or less, but left 
sufficient stumps upon which the nation could 
hobble around within a very narrow area, in 
central Europe. 

We can see in our mind's eye this operation 
being performed. Germany is again brought 
to the operating room weak from her previous 
operations; Professor Wilson carrying the 
ether, Clemenceau the axe, and Lloyd George 
the bucket. 

The victim is brought into an amphitheatre, 
in which there are hundreds of excited, gesticu- 
lating men, representing nearly every nation of 
the civilized world. Men alone are present. 
Even the nurse, that redeeming type of our 
civilization, with her soft footsteps, like unto 

[163] 



the rustle of an angel wing — is not there. The 
field is being made ready for her future labors. 

What a picture we have before us, as we see 
the victim, stretched on the table, gagged, and 
bound; the three men standing near and the 
emissaries of evil from every land looking on. 
When will the world bring forth an artist who 
will put on canvas the faces of these men and 
this scene; like that great artist who pictured 
the faces in that masterpiece — '^ Christ before 
Pilate"? 

We see Wilson with his classic, serious face, 
nervous and apprehensive, ill-fitted to his sur- 
roundings ; and Lloyd George, that personifica- 
tion of volcanic energy, shifty as a toreador, 
agile as an Arabian swordsman, cruel as Caesar, 
and at times as gentle as the heart of a woman, 
standing there smiling and complacent ; and be- 
side him Clemenceau, that embodiment of the 
beast, the word ''executioner" written into 
every line of his countenance — in every smile, 
as in every frown; cruel, merciless and unfor- 
giving; the blood of the Middle Ages, coursing 
through twentieth century veins, unable and un- 
willing to see anything but in terms of France 
— blind and deaf alike to every appeal of reason 
and every dictate of humanity. 

The grim business is soon over — these two 
great legs — coal and iron — upon which German 
commercial supremacy rested, are removed. 

For a number of years to come, Germany is to 
deliver to the Allies the stupendous sum of 
forty million tons of coal annually. As there 
are but nine million families in Germany, this 
means that each family on an average must pro- 
vide for the Allies more than four tons of coal. 
How many great furnaces will go out, how many 
million families will go short of fuel, during the 

[164] 



rigorous German winters, the dullest imagina- 
tion may comprehend. 

The same thing applies to iron. Germany ob- 
tained the larger portion of her iron ore from 
Alsace-Lorraine. Her industries, scattered all 
over the entire country, were created and es- 
tablished in the belief that this supply would 
be permanent. Alsace-Lorraine now goes back 
to France — the justice of which we have gone 
into, in another chapter. 

At present, and for years to come, France 
will be unable to avail herself of this new sup- 
ply of iron ore, owing to her lack of furnaces 
and factories and the skilled workmen neces- 
sary to operate them. Germany has these fur- 
naces and factories and the talent to operate 
them. The world is suffering from a lack of 
finished steel and iron. At one stroke, this 
great world supply is cut off — without the 
slightest regard for world needs; the only 
thought being the destruction of Germany and 
all her industries. 

In America we have seen isolated examples of 
suffering, caused by the closing down of one 
particular industry, but this soon would be 
overcome by other industries taking their place ; 
or if that did not occur, the workers could soon 
take other positions, or move to nearby towns 
and be quickly at work again. But imagine 
the deplorable and hopeless condition, and the 
want and degradation that will follow, when the 
industries of a whole country are artificially 
paralyzed and that without hope of remedy. 

The next operation to be performed was the 
relieving Germany of her colonies. This, 
though cruel, was not vital to Germany. It is 
true, that in this, the Allies exacted their pound 
of flesh, but it was not the flesh from off the 

[165] 



German parent body, but rather the appropria- 
tion of her cliildren. The loss therefore, was 
more sentimental than real — not vital as in the 
case of the loss of her merchant marine, her 
iron, and her coal. 

Under Article 119 Germany cedes all her right 
and title to her overseas possessions. To make 
matters worse for her, she loses not only her 
title to these colonies, but she is still responsible 
for any claims or debts standing against these 
colonies, which were incurred in process of 
development, or otherwise. In addition to this, 
we find the following iniquitous feature: ''The 
Allies and Associated Powers reserve the right 
to retain and liquidate, all property, rights, and 
interests belonging at the date of the coming 
into force, of the present treaty, to German 
nationals or companies controlled by them in 
the German colonies." 

Thus Germany is swept clean of her colonies, 
and the citizens of these colonies may be de- 
prived of their rights without redress. The 
same provision applies to Alsace-Lorraine. By 
the treaty, France may confiscate the property 
of any German resident at will. 

In addition to this, Germany must pay off any 
debts incurred before the war, which now cover 
Alsace-Lorraine, money spent in the public im- 
provements, etc., of these provinces. 

The unbearable financial burden already de- 
scribed that has been put on the back of Ger- 
many, and the amputations, which will render 
her almost helpless, have also been supple- 
mented by mutilations and indignities, for num- 
ber, diabolical cunning, and disregard for 
justice, which are without parallel in history. 
They have fastened these unfortunate people 
to the cross by a thousand and one nails, in 

[166] 



addition to the cruel iron spikes, already de- 
scribed. 

I have another task to perform aside from 
showing the war guilt and peace crimes of the 
Allies and therefore must bring this chapter to 
a close. 

Volumes could be written if details were un- 
dertaken. 

I will simply ask the reader to consider but 
a few of the minor strands by which, in addition 
to the spikes and the nails, Germany is fastened 
to the cross. 

Examine the tariff provisions by which Ger- 
many has to receive goods without being per- 
mitted to exact duty, and does not receive the 
same privilege in return; her great inland wa- 
terway system under the control of her enemies ; 
the west bank of the Rhine subject to their tariff 
control, and other regulations of the victors ; day 
and night at the mercy of the so-called Repara- 
tion Commission, made to pass any laws or do 
any service that these men, with their unlimited 
powers, backed by menacing armies, may dic- 
tate. 

And the relation of this Instrument to Ger- 
many forms only a part of the blight cast upon 
the world by this hand of Death. It ignores 
every element of economic law, decapitates with 
a stroke one of the world's greatest res- 
ervoirs of supply, disregards human trends and 
customs, and tears asunder that which has been 
cemented by the centuries, leaving peace little 
less to be desired than war. 

The Versailles Agreement was arrived at 
after six months of plotting and intrigue, in an 
atmosphere of greed, hate, falsehood, and re- 
venge. It was conceived in lust and born of lies. 
It is the foul creature of the night. 

[167] 



Had all the German people been guilty, and 
the Allies as innocent as the angels, still this 
treaty would have been an abomination because 
it usurps the functions of Providence, in that it 
wreaks vengeance; and has it not been pro- 
claimed ''Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord"? 

But how is this great account to be balanced? 
That it mil — be assured. The mills of the gods 
may grind out this grist slowly, or they may 
vomit it out like an earthquake. Already, 
ominous subterranean rumbles are being heard. 

It is said that before an earthquake takes 
place, cattle become uneasy, birds fly wildly to 
and fro, all living things except men become 
excited and apprehensive. In a mysterious way, 
they sense coming danger. 

His eyes are blind, indeed, who does not see 
the dark clouds gathering on the horizon; and 
deaf are those ears that do not hear the rumbles 
of Nature's gathering physical and spiritual 
forces. Humanity everywhere is sensing dan- 
ger. They realize that all is not well. The 
civilization of other days through injustice, al- 
though dwelling in the security of hewn rocks, 
was swept away, and likewise our civilization, 
less secure in our skyscrapers will, if we do not 
take warning, collapse like a house of cards. 

To-day, our so-called civilization is on trial — 
on trial before the great Judge of the Universe. 
It is on trial like other civilizations that have 
gone before, and have been found wanting. If 
there is not enough righteousness in this world 
— enough Christian spirit, which will rise and 
destroy the evil of this Peace — our civilization 
like other civilizations will be over-turned and 
we shall be commanded to build on new founda- 
tions — other than greed and hate. 

God will not permit this inequity. He will not 
[168] 



permit a new edifice to be erected — after the 
plan of these Versailles taskmasters, which has 
for a foundation, injustice, and a superstructure 
— to be made of human bones — cemented by 
human blood and tears. 

''And the Kings of the earth, and the great 
men and the rich men, and the captains, and the 
mighty men, and every bond man, and every 
free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the 
rocks of the mountains ; and said to the moun- 
tains and the rocks: 'Fall on us, and hide us 
from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, 
and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great 
day of His wrath is come ; and who shall be able 
to stand r " 



[169] 



CHAPTER VIII 

The Lessons and the Remedy 

Out of this deluge of blood, from this storm 
of fire that has swept Europe, will the peoples 
of the world learn a lesson, will they get a new 
vision, will they see and understand those ac- 
cursed forces that are enslaving mankind, lead- 
ing nations, like herds of cattle, to slaughter, 
forcing humanity to march in multitudes, 
through highways infested with thieves, their 
hands tied and eyes blindfolded, led on either by 
a pygmy king, an ambitious minister of state, or 
a so-called "Constitutional Representative of 
the people" — the president of a republic? 

The people of every nation that entered the 
great war were grossly misled, misrepresented 
and deceived, whether their form of government 
was an autocracy, constitutional monarchy, or a 
republic. 

In no case had the people of any country any- 
thing whatsoever to say regarding their destiny 
— this was just as true of America as it was of 
Russia, Germany, France or Britain. 

In no case were the people consulted — not 
one. In America, like all the rest, the will of 
one man was supreme. 

In no instance did the people of any nation 
want war. The people of Russia did not want 
war, nor the people of Germany nor of France 
nor of Britain, much less America. They de- 
sired peace. They wished to be left alone to till 
their lands, operate their factories, educate their 
children, and live their lives in peace. 

But, you say, they all entered the war and 
[170] 



fought, and this being so they must have been 
willing and eager to do so. ' That conclusion I 
will not question. We have here the most per- 
plexing problem in national psychology, a 
phenomenon, difficult to dissect or analyze. 

We know, for instance, the power of elec- 
tricity; but we cannot analyze it. Every man 
who wields the scepter of power in a nation, 
whether he be Czar, Kaiser, King or President, 
knows the existence of a hidden, latent national 
force and he realizes how he can chain it to his 
will and desire. In order to bring this power of 
so-called national patriotism into action, he first 
commits his country to a foreign program; 
through the medium of the press fills the public 
mind with a sense of danger; arouses a spirit 
of prejudice and ill-will ; starts the flags waving 
and the bands playing and in an incredibly short 
time a wave of frenzy passes over the land and 
soon the people are prepared for a blood sacri- 
fice. 

This is precisely what took place, first in 
Russia, then in Germany and France, then in 
England and her colonies and afterwards, to as 
marked a degree in America. 

To-day the world is suffering from the result 
of a patriotic debauch. To-day every country 
is suffering from the sin of idolatry — the wor- 
ship of nationality — the sin of flag worship. So 
long as this is so, ''the man on horseback" is 
sure of his following; the king knows where he 
can get his recruits; an ambitious autocratic 
president of a republic knows upon whose shoul- 
ders he may step towards ' ' a Place in the Sun. ' ' 

If ultra-patriotism is a virtue in a people, then 
all the warring countries are on an equality — 
the Grermans being as fervent in their homage 
and devotion to their flag as the Americans or 

[171] 



12 



the British or the French. But it is not a virtue 
in a people — it is a national sin — it is a species 
of pagan idolatry, a sin that has brought its 
punishment down through the history of man- 
kind — and never more swift and certain and 
retributive than during the late war. 

There is to-day in America more real, live and 
sincere reverence for the American flag than 
there is for the Cross which is symbolic of 
Christ. I venture to say that, if in the presence 
of a crowd, a man threw a stone through a 
church window, even a window in which is in- 
scribed the words of Christ, the worst that 
would happen to him is that he might be handed 
over to the police. But let the same man cast a 
missile at the American flag and instantly he 
would be torn almost limb from limb. There is 
no question regarding the truth of that. 

Those who attended war meetings held in the 
different American churches must have, on re- 
flection, been astounded at what they heard and 
saw. The usual religious hymns would be sung 
in order to impress the people with the sacred- 
ness of their surroundings. These would be 
sung in a very perfunctory, if not a half-hearted 
way. But note the change in the demeanor and 
spirit of the audience when the ' ' Star-Spangled 
Banner" or "America" would be sung. What 
sparkling eyes — ^what heaving breasts ! 

The roof would almost rise with the fiery 
fervor of the audience. How joyfully they 
would sing *'My country, 'tis of thee, sweet 
land of liberty," and that, perhaps, after some 
of these same people had recently assisted in 
tarring and feathering some unfortunate who 
refused to buy Liberty Bonds or who, without 
due consideration for consequences, publicly 
quoted such antiquated sayings as these: "He 

[172] 



who is without sin among you, cast the first 
stone," or ''Blessed are the peace-makers" or, 
perchance ''Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." 
In this, the last chapter, I will endeavor to 
point out the three things that the peoples of 
the world must do in order to insure world 
peace. 

(1) They must cease the idolatrous worship 
of flags and nationalities and substitute inter- 
nation based on the brotherhood of man. 

(2) International statesmen must restore 
the world's equilibrium by creating confidence 
based on justice. 

There are evidences to be found in every 
country of a rising tide setting in, which if not 
checked by wise regulation and international 
adjustments, will carry away existing authority 
as the raging mountain torrent sweeps away 
dykes and dams as though they were handfuls 
of straw. The waters are disturbed and troubled 
in all countries, while in others the lands are 
flooded by revolutions and the people are being 
submerged. Ancient land-marks, long thought 
secure, have been swept away or obliterated. 

Before the world can have true peace, the 
peoples of the different nations must insist upon 
the wiping out of all international agreements 
which are based on injustice and maintained by 
autocratic force. 

The principal of these, of course, is the Ver- 
sailles peace treaty, by which is sought the en- 
slavement of the German people. 

Whether the destruction of this enormity may 
come as a result of evolution or revolution, it is 
not my purpose to endeavor to forecast. There 
is, however, a spirit growing amongst the work- 
ers and producers of all lands which recognizes 
the common brotherhood of labor, and a sense 

[173] 



of justice which is not circumscribed by national 
frontiers or artificially made boundaries, which 
will demand that all forms of slavery of their 
fellows, no matter where existing, must be de- 
stroyed. 

The fate of many a ship of state, with their 
precious cargoes, will depend on how their cap- 
tains interpret the restless barometer and read 
aright these signs in the heavens — or whether 
they mistake the tokens of an incipient storm 
for the warning of an impending tornado, 

(3) The people must have complete control 
over their own destiny, as in a true democracy ; 
a state where the will of the people, not a select 
few, is supreme. 

There is not a democracy on the face of the 
earth to-day. There is not one country in which 
the people rule. America is not a democracy — 
it is a semi-autocracy known as a republic. A 
republic in many respects is one of the most 
vicious forms of government extant. Under this 
form of government the people are constantly 
bled, misled and misrepresented. 

In this country the people are at the mercy 
of two soulless autocratic machines, and are 
ruled by these. It is true that we have the 
privilege of temporarily getting rid of one auto- 
cratic machine at the expiration of each two or 
four years and substituting another one there- 
for, but that process has its disadvantages In 
that we discard a sleek and fatted crew for a 
lean and hungry one. So under this blessed 
republican form of government, we are engaged 
year after year in the task of kicking the lazy, 
dishonest, over-fat republican aggregation out 
of the back door and letting in the hungry, whin- 
ing and forlorn democratic contingent at the 
front door ; and no sooner is this done than the 

[174] 



republican horde takes a position in waiting at 
the front door, knowing full w^ell that in a cer- 
tain time the democratic contingent will disgrace 
itself in the eyes of the public and be kicked out 
and then the waiting republicans re-enter, not 
because they are wanted, but for the reason that 
under our present form of government we must 
endure either one or the other. As a protest 
against this farce, millions of reputable citizens 
will not walk across the street to record their 
votes. 

We elect our so-called representatives for two 
or four years. During the election campaign 
all manner of promises are made — only to be 
broken. 

Have you ever observed the practical work- 
ings of this so-called "Representative" Govern- 
ment of ours, at short range — at Washington? 
If you have, you will marvel that the American 
people have not long ago gone bankrupt or be- 
come revolutionists. 

What spectacle do we observe at the national 
capitolf Here we find four or five hundred men, 
assembled from every state in the Union, given 
absolute power under the constitution to enact 
such laws as they will, spend such amounts of 
money as they desire, and commit the people to 
a thousand and one obligations, enterprises and 
covenants both at home and abroad. 

And who are these men and what influences 
surround them? 

They are usually of two classes — business or 
professional men who have been failures in their 
business or profession ; or if not these, the rep- 
resentatives of "interests" — commercial and 
otherwise. 

The latter class are usually in the pay of 
these "interests" and the former impecunious 

[175] 



class, are recipients of tips, favors and bribes, 
the amounts of these depending on how badly 
the '' interests" are in need of legislative as- 
sistance. 

Come with me in imagination to Washington, 
the seat of your national government ; and watch 
the operation of that great machine that makes 
your laws, levies your taxes, expends your 
money, makes war and declares peace, and does 
a thousand and one things which aifect you at 
every turn and from every angle. 

Your ''representative" is there. You see 
him seated at his little desk, surrounded by 
other little desks at which other men are sitting. 
The legislative machine is running at full speed, 
accompanied by a strange and unfamiliar hum. 
Your ears are not yet in tune with your sur- 
roundings. Although reasonably near, you only 
catch an occasional word, amid the babble and 
confusion. You are as near the different speak- 
ers as your "representative" is, and you mar- 
vel at what manner of ears he has, if they are 
able to transmit to the brain all that has been 
said. You give up the hopeless task of finding 
out what it is all about and to assure yourself, 
you fasten your eyes again on your "represen- 
tative." You study his countenance. You try 
to divine from his face the importance of the 
occasion and the proceedings. He yawns, he 
looks bored, he shifts uneasily in his seat, he 
manicures his nails ; and while another ' ' repre- 
sentative" is pounding a desk, impressing the 
importance of his utterances, your ' ' representa- 
tive" is seen stooping over and relating to his 
desk mate what you suspect is either a funny 
joke or a good story. 

Hour after hour passes away and you have 
yet to find one expression of either interest in 

[176] 



the proceedings or quickened human intelligence 
in the face of your ''representative." The 
House is at last adjourned for the night. Bored 
and bedraggled, your ''representative" goes out 
into the darkness, Avith whom and where, 
Heaven alone knows, and Heaven, for some un- 
known reason, does not always tell the secrets 
of a Congressman. 

You go to your hotel feeling that something 
was "done" at the session — but you have no in- 
telligent idea what it was. You open up the 
morning paper and to your amazement you find 
that the night previous, two hundred and fifty 
million dollars were appropriated, taxes involv- 
ing millions were levied and several laws vitally 
affecting every man, woman and child in Amer- 
ica, were passed. 

Now, follow this man out into the night, under 
cover of the darkness of which the beasts and 
reptiles of the jungle come forth to meet their 
prey. This man carries with him the purse- 
strings of the nation, strings that open at will 
the overflowing ornate wallet of the rich and 
the meagre earnings and savings of the poor — 
tied in the discarded rags of poverty. He car- 
ries with him not only this, but a thousand and 
one other powers and privileges which, when 
used or put in operation have power for good 
and evil almost beyond human imagination. No 
armed caravan, crossing the desert waste, bear- 
ing to civilization rubies, diamonds and pearls 
beyond the wealth of Croesus, is comparable 
to the treasure borne by this man — your ' ' repre- 
sentative, " as he disappeared into the darkness 
— into the jungle. 

Ask yourself, seriously, what hand feeds these 
creatures of the night — these ravenous beasts of 
prey — the number of which is legion; or who 

[177] 



feeds that myriad aggregation of lizards that 
infest not only the streets, depots and hotels of 
Washington, but every wing and corridor of the 
Capitol as well? The hand that feeds these 
creatures is the hand of your ' ' representative ' ' 
— not only these creatures, but the "interests" 
that stand back of them. You have given, with- 
out question, the power to do this. Take away 
this power (in a way that I will presently indi- 
cate) and before twenty-four hours after this 
power has been taken away you would see such 
an exodus of these beasts and reptiles from 
Washington as would tax every railroad to its 
limit. 

To eradicate the evils of our so-called repre- 
sentative system, means must be taken to cur- 
tail those absolute powers that the American 
people have placed in the hands of those who 
represent them.* The people must be the final 



*The writer recently had the pleasure of hearing a kindly 
reference made to the desirability of a republican, as compared 
to a democratic form of government. The Honorable Leslie M. 
Shaw, ex-Secretary of the United States Treasury, a statesman 
of the old school (who by the way, unlike most of his associates, 
has not outlived his uscfulnesis) asked his audience which pro- 
cedure would prove more satisfactory for the people, in case, 
for instance in the building of a ship ; for the people to dele- 
gate men who know all about ships and have them complete the 
transaction, or have the ship built by the public which has no 
knowledge of ships or shipbuilding. The point to be brought 
home to his audience, of course, is that our Representatives in 
Congress know what the people want and are better able to 
transact the public business then the great mass of the people, 
who are not equipped for such business. 

In theory Mr. Shaw is correct. We need experts to carry out 
our prospective undertakings and one man in this may do 
more successful work than a million. But for instance you 
desire to build a house — you employ an architect to do the 
planning and the carrying out of your wishes and desires. 
But mark the difference. Under our present republian form of 
government, your architects, without consulting you, decide for 
you, and the nation of wliich you are a part, that you need a 
ship (or a railroad or a canal or a law) and also decides what 
that ship shall cost, what kind of a ship it shall be, what par- 
ticular use shall be made of it, and you, or rather the people, 
have nothing to say about it, either as to its necessity, its use, 

[178] 



judge as to the wisdom or necessity of any and 
all important legislation. 

How this may be done without destroying the 
structure of our present form of government, I 
will attempt to outline. 

My proposition is, that our government con- 
sist of four branches instead of three, as at 
present. Instead of the Legislative, the Execu- 
tive and the Judicial, as now obtains, we should 
have four branches, namely : The Initiative, the 
Public Ax^proval, the Executive and the Judicial. 

In making this change, the present structure, 
with one exception, will remain; but one im- 
portant addition is recommended : 

(1) Abolish the Senate. It is in no sense a 
representative institution — representing only a 
certain class and type of men and a certain class 
and type of business. 

(2) Retain the present House of Represen- 
tatives and make of this what will be known as 
the Initiative Branch. 

(3) Establish a Public Approval branch. 

(4) Retain our present Executive and Judi- 
cial branches, with some modifications. 

(5) Have the members of the Initiative 
branch elected for a period of four years, in- 
stead of two, as at present, and the President 
for eight years instead of four. 

or its cost — you simply have to accept it and pay the bill. The 
only thing left for you to do in case you are dissatisfied, is 
after two years you may have revenge by dismissing your Eep- 
resentative and putting in his place, one that you have already 
dismissed previously for either stupid or dishonest service. 

What we want, and the people must have, are legislative 
architects selected by the people and delegated to submit plans 
and specifications for the approval of the people, and when 
once the people approve of these plans these architects can 
carry them into effect, and not before. 

Of course, if Mr. Shaw claims that the people do not know 
what they want, or are incapable of deciding what is good for 
them — that is another story. 

[179] 



The Initiative branch would resemble in many 
respects our present House of Representatives, 
and would be elected in the same manner as now 
obtains. They would initiate all legislation, 
both those of minor and major character. Minor 
laws and legislation, with the President's ap- 
proval, would, as now, become law. Major legis- 
lation, of prime importance and which would 
affect the people materially, before becoming 
effective would have to pass the Public Ap- 
proval branch; and then, under certain condi- 
tions, would become law without the President's 
approval. 

Now, the important change in the form of 
government which I propose will be found in 
the establishment of the additional branch, 
namely, the Public Approval branch. 

It is important that I should elaborate this 
clearly; for by reason of this branch and 
through it we can have a real democracy — a 
government which will express the absolute and 
unqualified will of the people, instead of the will 
of a hand-picked body of men. 

I will endeavor to show that when what I am 
pleased to call the Public Approval branch, 
gives approval or disapproval to the laws which 
the Initiative branch has passed, this approval 
or disapproval will in every sense reflect the 
prevailing wishes of the American people ; and 
that, free from every form of contamination. 
It will remove the American Government from 
the jungle. 

It will be seen that the Initiative branch will 
not be the important mechanism of the govern- 
mental machine; and therefore the briber and 
corruptionist will find it almost useless to spend 
his money in order to have his pet measure 
passed by one branch, when it has to go before 

[180] 



tlie Public Approval branch, wliicb will be im- 
possible to buy or control. 

As has been stated, the source of all legisla- 
tion will be the Initiative branch. They will 
formulate and pass such laws, minor and major, 
as they deem wise. These, usually, will be in 
obedience to the demands of the people. That 
is the first step in the legislative process. After 
the Initiative Congress performs its labors and 
adjourns, those enactments of a major char- 
acter are passed on to the Public Approval 
branch, for acceptance or rejection. 

This branch will comprise the voters of one 
Assembly District in each state of the forty- 
eight states of the Union. The Governor of each 
state, at a public ceremony, will draw by lot the 
Assembly District that will represent his par- 
ticular state. For instance, New York State 
has 150 Assembly Districts. Each district has 
approximately fifteen thousand voters. Cali- 
fornia has 80 Assembly Districts, each contain- 
ing a smaller number of votes than those in 
New York State. The particular district that 
may be drawn in each state may be a rural 
one or a city one but when the forty-eight dis- 
tricts are drawn, representing the whole United 
States, an average of rural and city districts 
will be reached, so that when these forty-eight 
districts record their wishes and desires, both 
city and country have spoken. As soon as the 
Governor of each state has impartially drawn 
the legislative district that will, for the time 
being, together with the other legislative dis- 
tricts of the other states, make up the Public 
Approval branch, the authorities at Washington 
will immediately send a f ac-simile ballot to each 
and every voter in the district, based on regis- 
tration. A new registration in these districts 

[181] 



would immediately take place and an election 
day be named by the government. The majority 
of votes in these districts would determine 
whether the laws and enactments passed by the 
Initiative branch should become the laws of the 
land or not. Should sixty per cent of the voters 
in these widely scattered forty-eight districts 
approve a particular law, then that law comes 
into effect without the signature of the Presi- 
dent. Should less than sixty per cent and more 
than fifty per cent approve, then the President's 
signature would be necessary, in order to com- 
plete the legislation. 

In addition to this, the question would be sub- 
mitted to these voters as to whether the Initia- 
tive branch should be recalled or not. If sixty 
per cent of the voters, together with fifty per 
cent of the total number of states, should vote 
for a recall of the Initiative branch — a general 
Congressional election would have to take place 
within six months. This would place members 
of the Initiative Congress on their good be- 
havior^ — all the time. 

It must be understood that each year a new 
drawing of Assembly Districts would take place, 
which would form the basis of the Public Ap- 
proval branch for that particular year. 

The recall provision would apply to the Presi- 
dent as well. The President would be elected 
for eight years. If, in two consecutive years, 
the voters comprising the Public Approval 
branch should by a sixty per cent vote demand 
the recall of the President, a new election must 
take place at the same time as the next regular 
or irregular Congressional election. 

No fear need be felt regarding unnecessary 
elections. 

We may take it for granted that if more than 
[182] 



sixty per cent of the voters scattered over the 
entire United States as represented in the Pub- 
lic Approval branch ask for a recall of the 
President or Congress, there would be a mighty 
good reason back of the demand. 

The President would have the power of ap- 
pointing the Judges of the Supreme Court. 
These appointments should be for life or good 
conduct, as at present. However, the people 
should have the privilege of recall of these offi- 
cials in the following manner. The ballot should 
contain the following interrogation: ''Shall 
the members of the United States Supreme 
Court be recalled!" If sixty per cent of the 
people vote in the affirmative on two successive 
occasions, then the President must recall up to 
half the number comprising the membership of 
the Court and name new members to take their 
place. It will be the President's business to 
know what members of the Court are under the 
suspicion of the public. Should the President 
show disregard for the people's wishes, then he 
will be in danger of recall himself. 

The advantages resulting from this change in 
the structure of our government will be : 

(1) The Initiative Congress will be in every 
sense the servants and not the masters of the 
American people. 

(2) The Public Approval branch will in every 
sense represent the average thought, aspiration 
and ideal of the American people, which should 
be the beginning and the end of all legislation. 

( 3 ) Under this system all lobbying and every 
form of graft would be eliminated, as what use 
would there be in a corruptionist controlling the 
Initiative branch when the question of accept- 
ance or rejection would be in the hands of the 
voters of forty-eight districts, each district rep- 

[183] 



resenting several thousand voters and these dis- 
tricts scattered over the entire country; and 
protected by stringent laws against outside in- 
fluences. 

(4) Under this system we should have suf- 
frage at its best. Every voter in these favored 
districts would become alive to his importance 
and responsibility. He would feel that he was 
deciding momentous questions for the nation — 
he would, in fact, be a member of Congress — 
for the time being. 

As these forty-eight Assembly Districts 
would be drawn fresh every year, and their loca- 
tion not known in advance, little chance would 
there be for the forces of graft and corruption 
to fasten themselves in any way on the com- 
munities. 

Under this plan, the voters of the entire coun- 
try would elect and send experts to Washington. 
Their duties would be to formulate and pass 
laws for the consideration and approval of the 
people's branch — a branch which consists of 
forty-eight scattered districts. The people 
would have the right to accept or reject these 
laws and regulations, as submitted by the Initia- 
tive branch. Under this plan, the American 
people would become true masters of their own 
destiny. It is only in this way that the peoples 
of the world may overcome the different forms 
of autocracies that enslave them. As new 
democracies are created, fraternity and brother- 
hood will link the nations of the world together, 
and a treaty such as was recently signed in 
Paris will receive at the hands of the democra- 
cies of the world, the fate that it so justly de- 
serves. 

This nation could not endure, half slave and 
[184] 



half free; neither can it continue a union of 
autocracy and democracy. It will become one or 
the other. 

Never since this government was founded 
has the Lamp of Liberty burned so low and so 
unsteady as to-day. It is a light dimly 
burning in the gloom of the valley — not high on 
the hilltop. No longer is it the beacon light and 
hope of the storm-tossed mariner; nor yet a 
guide for the shackled sons of men. 

Shall we stand idly by and watch the lowering 
flame — as the darkness gathers around us — or 
shall we, while it is yet day, raise aloft the ban- 
ner of liberty, reconsecrate ourselves again to 
its sacred cause and proclaim to all the world 
that we shall, by the help of Grod, form in this 
land, *'A Government of the people, by the peo- 
ple, and for the people, that shall not perish 
from the earth"? 

Truth is the balanced scale. It knows no 
flag, no national frontier — no creed. Flags are 
the true emblem of greed, hate and vain glori- 
ous self love ; national frontiers are the outposts 
of strift; creeds the eastranged and divided 
forces operating against evil. To the applica- 
tion of truth in the affairs of men and nations, 
this book is dedicated. 



[185] 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: uks/ 2001 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



